Legalectric

Yup, there’s the Red Wing City Council.  At the December 11, 2017 meeting, as part of “Other Council Concerns” they discussed sending it to the Human Rights Commission, a good thing, but it was not on the agenda, which it should have been.  No notice that this was coming up.  It’s in the “Administrator’s Report” item 11 on City Council agenda (click for larger version):

So it’s on the Agenda for Human Rights Commission, but it’s item 11b, WITH NO IDENTIFICATION OF THE ORDINANCE AT ISSUE!  How is anyone to know?

20171221 – Agenda_RW-HRC

On September 18, 2017, the City of Rochester passed a similar ordinance, ON THE CONSENT AGENDA, where there’s no discussion.  WHAT?!?!?

Pages from 2017-09-18 City Council – Full Agenda-2647_Rochester_D-6

I’m looking for the video to see how that went down.  It was on initiative of the City Attorney there, see agenda item D-6 from Council Packet above.  Pulled from Consent Agenda:

35. Ordinance Prohibiting Disturbance of Assembly or Meeting

Item D.6 was pulled to allow for discussion.

Councilmember Wojcik commented on his concerns with the vagueness of the
proposed language.

President Staver commented.

City Attorney Terry Adkins provided background information on this issue,

Councilmember Hickey commented in support of the proposed language being
presented.

Councilmember Campion commented, noting it appears from reading the ACLU’s
brief on this issue that they are in support of this sort of action.

Approved directing the City Attorney to prepare an ordinance and give it its first
reading this evening under H.1.

And under H.1:

H.1. H1 – First Reading:
An Ordinance Creating and Enacting Section 85.065 of the Rochester Code of
Ordinances, Relating to Disturbing an Assembly or Meeting was given a first
reading.

Then, on October 16th:

And the Council Packet for this item:

Really!  Nothing at all…

Here’s the video: At 1:26:45 – 1:27:14, LESS THAN 30 SECONDS, NO DISCUSSION

So tell me, what exactly did they pass?  My guess is that they passed it as introduced, but…