Legalectric

At all times, keep the “fiduciary responsibility” mantra going — the City Council’s primary job is fiduciary responsibility for the city.

Here’s the Blue Water Farms presentation, 5/2/2023, so I guess it’s from the private invite-only meeting held last week at Smokin’ Oak:

What handouts is Blue Water Farms looking for? Shouldn’t everyone be concerned when the CEO of Blue Water Farm, Clarence Bischoff, was CEO of the Riverbend Market Cooperative, which defaulted on the Port Authority loan, and left other investors hanging in the lurch? (I’m still waiting on the Data Practices Act request, but it’s my understanding that the loan was in default, some recouped from sale of assets, and over $20,000 written off — will post when this info is received.)

What handouts from Red Wing city coffers is Blue Water Farms looking for? Who knows… the proposal isn’t public — YET. Their recent offer to “buy” the property is not public, and was rejected by the Port Authority because it didn’t meet their criteria:

It’s my belief that the Port Authority requirements for consideration of a sale were established 15 years ago, and haven’t been amended — pay particular attention to the second page. Am I missing something here, or do these requirements still apply?

What? The “offfer” is not public? The supporters, coincidentally they’re the vocals proponents of Recall City Hall (here’s the wayback of the Recall site, which has been disappeared), are claiming the City won’t make the offer public. Ummmm, hello?!?! That’s not on the City. Whether or not information is public is up to the party at issue. In this case, just like with ejected Chief Pohlman, the one with the power to disclose is the party at issue — it was Pohlman then, and he chose not to disclose.

In this case, DOH, it’s Blue Water Farms that has the power to disclose. So do it, Blue Water Farm, disclose your “offer.” Let’s make sure people know what we’re talking about. Folks aren’t talking about the handouts you want, so what else is there we need to know?

There’s a lot we need to know, and don’t have that information. It’s clear that the Recall City Hall folks loudly supporting Blue Water Farms, without knowledge of the issues and/or with select inside knowledge, apparently didn’t learn anything about confidentiality and who has the power of disclosure from the Pohlman and Recall City Hall fiasco. Earth to Mars — want disclosure? Get on Blue Water Farms to disclose!

Why is Port Authority involved? Simple… The City Council has delegated “economic development” and the vetting of proposals to the Port Authority. The current fracas involves a Blue Water “offer” for the property, made April 27, 2023, and addressed at the Port Authority meeting May 2 (the same day, probably same time, as the private Blue Water meeting at Smokin’ Oak!). Listen to the Port’s meeting:

Port Authority video: https://redwingmn.portal.civicclerk.com/event/3104/media

• At 15:48 – 8.B. Committee Reports: Highway 19 & 61 Committee 4/5/23 and 4/25/23

• At 19:51 – 9.D. Consider Motion to Approve a Request for Offers (RFO) to Share with Parties Interested in the Former Central Research Laboratories Property at 250 Highway 19

• At 1:12:13 – 9.E. Motion to Accept a Proposal to Conduct a Phase I Archaeological Survey for the Former Central Research Property at 250 Highway 19

• Grand Finale: 2:22 — Denial of “offer” – 10.A. Consider Motion to Go Into Closed Session Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13D.05, Subd. 3(c)(3) to Consider an Offer and Purchase Term Sheet for the Sale of Real Property Owned by the City of Red Wing Located at 250 State Highway 19 (PIN 55.729.0100 the Former Central Research Laboratories Property)

Once more with feeling, the Port Authority findings in denial of the offer (~2:22 in video):

What does the Council have to say about these points? How is any decision by the Council possible, other than to bounce it back to the Port, or deny based on these points?

Meanwhile, the internet is full of pleadings and requests for Red Wing residents to swamp the City Council with “SELL THE PROPERTY TO BLUE WATER NOW!” This makes no sense. There’s been no information on the offer provided. So far, just presentations by Blue Water, and no vetting, no verification, NO DUE DILIGENCE.

Those pushing for this sale, who again just happen to be the Recall City Hall folks, claim that under the Charter the City has authority to buy and sell property, and yes, the Charter does authorize property sales and purchases by the Council:

What they don’t address is the Council’s delegation to the Port Authority. Even more significant, they don’t address the Port Authority process, used for the Bauer Built building, and so clearly laid out at the recent Port Authority and City Council joint workshop, and again in the Port Authority meeting (linked here again). The Council delegated authority to the Port Authority, which is doing its job — watch that Port meeting video.

One of the vocal atadvocates has even said that she had never heard of any archeological issues! Nevermind that this has been discussed ad nauseum at Port Authority and Council meetings and workshops, there’s a Memorandum of Understanding with Prairie Island Indian Community, and that a consultant has been selected to perform the work. Seems they don’t care about protection of the mounds, and that they don’t care about our relationship with Prairie Island Indian Community, and they don’t give a rodent’s rump about upholding the MOU (and to which the Port and Council have held fast). And I heard first hand at the joint Port and Council workshop the willingness of those stridently pushing for a sale NOW that they’d want it sold prior to completing of the archeological study, and would even support turning over that responsibility to the buyers, contrary to the MOU! Unreal… And again, thankfully the Port and the Council recognize the MOU.

And again, there’s also misinformation, disinformation, and/or willful ignorance of state open meeting law and disclosure regarding property sales. See Minnesota Statute 13D.05, Sub. 3:

What will the City Council do? Tune in! To join this meeting via Webex, click this link and type in the password 2023. To join via telephone, please dial (415) 655-0001. Enter access code 2551 442 7582 and password 2023 when prompted.

Willful, intentional, abdication of and failure to exercise fiduciary responsibility, failure to complete due diligence, vetting, verification…

M-A-L-F-E-A-S-A-N-C-E

Way way back, we’re talking 2017, the Citizens Assembly issued its report, part of which were suggestions to improve city meetings, that “better meetings” and ethics and the City’s Code of Conduct were the areas that were important to me. Why? Because at the last meeting, a concerted effort was made, through a secret meeting and a Resolution from that meeting, to prohibit virtual participation and to eliminate the Statement of Intent.

Notice who showed up for this workshop and notice who DID NOT show up for this workshop:

CLICK HERE FOR VIDEO OF WORKSHOP!

Here’s the packet for the meeting:

Everything I say about this is flavored by the LONG time it took to get to this discussion, and the flagrant misbehavior of some Council members, disregard for basic concepts of how government operates and DOESN’T and SHOULDN’T operate, and the dissing of the public. That said…

The discussion was a start. They went through the suggestions I’d offered (because I was the only one who’d offered specific suggestions, a few times over the last SIX YEARS), variations of what I’ve been offering since 2017, and they DID discuss them. For the most part, they have focused on two things.

• Develop “Standard Operating Procedures/Best Practices” explaining how things are done.
• Update the “How to Participate” flyer that’s on the table in the foyer (there should be an announcement of this handout at the beginning of meetings for folks new to appearing).

That’s a start, good to see, and ONWARD!

Here’s the 2/27/2023 City Council Meeting: youtube: https://youtube.com/watch?v=rqZKMLVXYI4&si=EnSIkaIECMiOmarE&t=8603

And here’s a transcript of that meeting:

Here’s the City’s Statement of Intent they want to eliminate:

I put together a handout about “Better Meetings” recommendations in Citizens Assembly Event Report for the meeting:

I also made copies of a Letter to the Editor that Alan and I had written following the ejection or resignation of Dennis Egan as Mayor due to conflict of interest, and as Citizens Assembly was discussing ethical issues and the City Code of Conduct, which is so deficient and needs updating. This last Council meeting was a wake up call for update of the Code of Conduct — discovery of the Gang of Four’s secret meeting, two Council members falsely stating and doubling down that it was an Agenda and/or Executive/Leadership committee meeting (plus “COVID is over,” I mean, really?!?!), and for trying to prohibit virtual comments and eliminating the Statement of Intent? I’d like to see Oath of Office committed to at each meeting!

From Goodhue County DFL:

Due to the continuing rate of COVID-19 spread, the Goodhue County DFL will conduct “contactless caucuses” on February 1, 2022. We’re seeing a record breaking surge of infections and hospitalizations; there is no way to know who’s been exposed or where someone’s traveled. Our caucuses rely on volunteers to operate, and we want to ensure everyone can participate in the democratic process safely. Because our Democratic caucuses are an open, public event to anyone that affirms they are a DFL-er, the Goodhue County DFL unit (Goodhue21) is providing multiple ways for all Democrats to participate in the 2022 Precinct Caucuses.

Participation in this year’s caucus will consist of submitting the following:

Precinct Caucus Non-Participation Forms: Precinct caucus attendees can submit a Non-Attendee form which shows their desire to hold Precinct Officer or Convention Delegate positions via email, mail, or in-person drop off at their caucus location. If there are more people interested in being a Convention Delegate than delegate slots, a random selection will be held during a public Zoom call on Wednesday, February 9. Watch your email for more details.

Resolutions: Attendees can also submit resolutions to be considered for inclusion in the State DFL Party Platform. All resolutions must be attached to the official resolution form. All reso​lutions will be forwarded to the OU convention (similar ones may be combined).

Ways To Participate:

Fill out the online form (Goodhue 21 Google Form) and submit directly to Goodhue 21 DFL.

Download and print the online form (Non-Attendee, Resolution), fill it out, and email the scanned document to goodhue21dfl@gmail.com. You can also physically mail documents to 11995 350th Street Way, Cannon Falls, 55009.

Print and fill out the online form, then submit in-person at your Precinct Caucus location on Caucus night.

Come to your Precinct Caucus location on Caucus night to fill out and submit your forms.Regardless which option you select, all Non-Attendee and Resolution forms must be received by 9pm on February 1 to be considered. Options one and two can be submitted any time before the deadline. Submit completed forms at any one of our 8 caucus locations:

Cannon Falls Elementary School, Door A

Goodhue Public School, Door 8

Kenyon-Wanamingo Elementary School, Wanamingo, Main Door

Kenyon-Wanamingo High School, Kenyon, Main Door

Lake City High School, Door 2 or 11

Pine Island High School, Door 18

Twin Bluff Middle School, Red Wing, Main Door

Zumbrota-Mazeppa High School, Zumbrota, Main Door

A Goodhue-21 DFL representative will be at each of the 8 caucus locations from 6:30 pm to 9:00 pm on February 1 to accept your documents.

Download the Non-Attendee Form:

From the DFL website at https://dfl.org/…/Precinct-Caucus-Fillable-Non-Attendee…

Or fill out the online form (Google Form) at https://docs.google.com/…/1FAIpQLSfwhoVXHWa…/viewform…

Download the Resolution Form:

From the DFL website at https://dfl.org/…/Adopted-7-August-2021-Rev-A-Page-A-1.pdf

Or fill out the online form (Google Form) at https://docs.google.com/…/1FAIpQLSedeZF3u7j…/viewform…

Email all documents or any questions to goodhue21dfl@gmail.com

Find your Caucus Location here. You can find more information on our website at www.goodhue21dfl.org

Last night, Sen. Osmek held a Senate Energy Committee meeting in Rochester. It was standing room only, at least 100 showed up (I had 100 flyers, and had 4 left and I know I missed a few).

Here’s the bill DRAFT, SC5558-6:

Here’s the powerpoint explaining the bill:

Who all showed up and testified? All a bunch of paid suits, with just three exceptions, pushed to the very end. Check the list of lobbyists here:

Alan Muller got on the list to testify, he’ll be writing to the Committee soon:

And here’s my comment sent to the committee:

Where were Senators Dibble and Marty? I must confess, I was so disgusted by Sen. Marty’s handling of the e21 debacle back in 2015 that I’ve not been back to the Senate Energy Committee since then (Marty tried to introduce Xcel’s e21 bill, and tried to shut down testimony opposing that bill…
(report from that meeting) though the room was packed with those who had rolled over supporting it, only three of us there opposed it, myself, Alan Muller, and Office of Attorney General’s RUD James Canneday. Sen. Marty pulled the bill as he “introduced” it and then substituted an e21 light and wouldn’t allow testimony on anything else! Well, we did what we could, and it wasn’t until the very end in conference committee or just before that he put the awful Xcel-desired language back in. SF 1735 – SHAME on each Senator who voted for it). Back into the fray, I guess!

My take is that Sen. Senjem, or the Republican caucus, or ???, are concerned about Sen. Senjem’s seat, why else would they put Mikey Bull up there beside him, emitting puffery about the bill? Seems there’s just one other Senate hearing scheduled, info below.

Next up, next week, Mound, Minnesota, in Sen. Ozmek’s district:

Wednesday, January 22, 2020, 4:00 PM

Mound Westonka High School’s Performing Arts Center

905 Sunnyfield Road East

Minnetrista, MN 55364

Now, Mikey, about “carbon capture and storage,” good grief. Did you learn nothing from all those years of Excelsior Energy’s Mesaba Project? Here’s why it’s good the Mesaba Project was not built!

Pipedreams of Green and Clean

Over the many years, there have been many “agreements,” and over the many years, time after time, people affected by these “agreements” have come to me for advice, to represent them, as they’re faced with consequences of these agreements. What agreements? The 1994 (Chapter 641) and 2003 (Chapter 11) Prairie Island bills, the
Merger Stipulation Dec 15 1999, the 2005 Transmission Omnibus Bill from Hell (Chapter 97), the e21 Xcel Business Plan pieces dribbling into Omnibus bills 2015 (Chapter 1) and since. Now this:

The two page agreement made public is in that filing. Note the requirements related to this docket and the IRP, to support, to facilitate, to not object to Xcel’s plan. They agree to “supporting the Company’s request to recover the undepreciated balance of the King plant as a regulatory asset through 2037… of the Sherco 3 plant through 2035” [which was just rehabbed and we’re paying for that now]. They agree to Sherco 2 use “on a seasonal basis until its retirement in 2023;” 706.4 GWh of energy efficiency savings annually (not cumulative, methinks?); support of decoupling, support of acquisition of at least 3,00 MW of solar before end of 3020; and support acquisition by bidding process and proposals of build and own.

They’re using this to gain approval of Xcel’s acquisition of the Mankato Energy Center doing an end run around the Integrated Resource Plan, due to be filed any second now.

This first came to my attention when I saw Sierra Club request withdrawal of its comments in the 18-702 docket, regarding Xcel acquisition of the Mankato Energy Center (MEC) gas plant.

What? Withdraw Comments? That’s not possible. Once something is filed, it cannot be deleted. Hmmmmmm, what on earth is it that they want to withdraw? Here ya go, note these are the “public” comments, so some redactions:

Very well done Comments, eh? And note, they’re right in line with the Comments of the Office of the Attorney General – RUD, which concludes:

And in a shorter version, ILSR hits the highlights:

Looking at all of this, I had to weigh in. I’m so tired of these deals that are against the public interest, deals that inflict infrastructure and other harms on unsuspecting people. Unintended consequences? Intended consequences? Reckless actions not caring? It’s not that hard to envision the resulting problems.

Really, I am so tired of these deals that are not in the public interest, and are all about rolling over for Xcel, giving them what they want, and getting a significant kicker for all that “support.” That’s how it’s happened in the past (remember all that funding for pushing transmission and coal gasification?), and odds are it’s no different today.

Remember the signs in so many windows, on so many lawns? How things change…