“Recall” on Charter Commission agenda?!?
March 25th, 2021
There’s a Charter Commission meeting next week – TUNE IN on Channel 6:
Red Wing Charter Commission | Mar 31, 2021 – 06:00 PM | Agenda |
And look what’s on the agenda (click for larger version):
Here’s what’s at issue:
BFD? Well, not really, because there are at least three people on the Charter Commission who are championing the “Recall City Hall” effort.
So I sent this missive out as notice and request that I want to add an agenda item to the “Approve Agenda” section:
To which Shelley Pohlman, Queen of Conflict of Interest in this recall matter, replied, 7 minutes later:
“This an open meeting violation.”
It’s pretty basic — can’t have people involved in an active (though likely doomed) recall effort voting on changes to the Charter regarding recall!!
Active recall… yeah, it’s a stretch, because there’s a high bar for a recall petition, and after that, a high bar in the number of signatures required:
There’s roughly 2,500 registered voters per ward, twice that where two wards are combined, and roughly 10,000 registered voters for the “at large” Council seat…
Let’s do the math… if they want to recall all but Beise.. SNORT! How many registered voters in that councilor’s ward(s) are needed?
- Hove – Wards 1 & 2 = 5,249, 20% = 1,049
- Klitzke – Ward 2 = 2,575, 20% = 515
- Norton – Ward 3 = 2,617, 20% – 523
- Buss – Ward 4 = 2,424, 20% = 484
- Brown – Wards 3 & 4, 20% = 5,041
- Stinson – At Large – All Wards 9,905, 20% = 1,981
I can’t see them gathering 500, 1,000 or 2,000 voters’ signatures, but there it is, they can do it, it’s clearly allowed in the City Charter, and they’re at least being press hounds, though no evidence of a Petition yet, so get your popcorn and have a seat…
They’ve formed a “Committee to Recall City Hall” and here’s their first report:
Note the large anonymous donations?
Anonymous donations – NOT OK!! The rules clearly state that:
It’s stated pretty clearly… “This itemization must include name, address, employer or occupation if self-employed, amount and date for these contributions.”
Nope, folks active in a recall effort shouldn’t be participating in discussion or voting on Charter Commission recall provision language change.
And then there’s the recall effort itself — folks not wanting to accept that they lost by an “overwhelming majority” vote of 6-1 to fire Roger Pohlman. Just no, what a waste of time, effort, and money. Lots of distractivism, pot-, and outright lies. Lies? Yes, look at this and note the misstated order of things:
Here’s a link to the Pohlman support “petition.”
Above, from Shelley Pohlman’s “Red Wing Minnesota News” page, she states, “In response, citizens presented the counsel with a petition with more than 250 names…” “In response” isn’t true. The properties in the WORD version presented to the City show that the “Petition” was begun on February 17, and last saved and given to the City on February 19, BEFORE he was fired, yet the Petition was demanding Pohlman be “reinstated immediately.” The petition was not delivered to the City “in response” as stated above. Why the misrepresentation? Ummmm… yes, really, BEFORE he was fired. What information were they acting on when they put this “Petition” together and solicited names? Who was soliciting “signers” for this “Petition” before he was fired? What information were those ~250 people who “signed” given? Were they told that Pohlman was applying to be Chief in Lakefield, MN?
Potential for Pohlman to be fired? He knew there were issues, issues that had been raised before. Here are two documents from his 2020 evaluation, retrieved with a Data Practices Act Request to City:
And the termination letter:
Looks to me like ~250 people were played. Pohlman knew this was coming. Someone(s) struck up the band, got the bandwagon rolling, folks jumped on, and they didn’t have the full story. Over and over, as above, they’re continuing to parrot lines that Pohlman wasn’t given time to speak? The potential of firing was not new to Pohlman, and he was represented by counsel, wasn’t he?
Saying that “taxpaying Red Wing citizens were shut out of the meeting” is bizarre. What does that mean, shut out? Employee matters are confidential, is that CONFIDENTIAL closed session what they wanted “open” contrary to state law? Is it that they didn’t attend the open zoom meeting where the Council acted? I’ve heard that some wanted an “OPEN UP” meeting, and IN PERSON meeting, at City Hall where the doors were open and people could attend in person, and that this was denied. Is this what they’re referring to? Let’s get this clarified!
Ya say ya wanna do a recall, and I say, “NO NO NO!” There’s no legal basis for a recall. This is a PR push, and a sham. Just because you can do something doesn’t mean you should.
Leave a Reply