Legalectric

Video: February 9, 2026 Red Wing City Council Meeting

Color me pissed… but again, my motto, “BETTER TO BE PISSED OFF THAN TO BE PISSED ON!”

It’s been hard to find the words, printable words, to express my dismay and disgust over both of the Red Wing City Council members representing my Ward, Ron Goggin and Don Kliewer, who voted against a simple and conservative statement from the City Council and Mayor. It was passed, a good thing, too mild, but a good thing. NOTE, though, it passed without their vote, after a protracted discussion with excuses not to support it, like a bizarre AI definition of “staging,” corrected by the City Attorney, and subsequent removal of a sentence prohibiting “staging” on city property. There were obtuse statements that City has no jurisdiction over immigration, which was NOT at issue, DOH, yet it was raised as a confounding factor. And once again, claims that it was too quick, needed more time, they didn’t know the situation — THIS IS NOT NEW, FOLKS, NOT A TIME TO HAVE YOUR HEAD IN THE SAND OR IN SOME NETHER ORIFICE. YOU’VE HAD A HEADS UP, AND APPARENTLY DID NOTHING OR DON’T CARE.

A position on the City Council is not a matter of butt-warming a chair — it’s WORK.

NOW IS THE TIME TO DO YOUR JOB!

REMEMBER THAT OATH OF OFFICE?

Here’s what was passed:

At an earlier meeting, they claimed they did not know about the situation in Red Wing, where we’ve had ICE in town, staying at one or more hotels, and abducting at least FOUR people here, and just a couple days ago, blocking a street and pepper-spraying observers, including one man, a pedestrian, that they’d backed into with a vehicle!

It’s not credible that they don’t know what’s happening in Red Wing. I know I’d started emailing them December 19, 2025, about it, and I believe others did as well between then and February 9th. From Ron and Don, “my” Councillors, I didn’t receive any acknowledgement of my warning and information about ICE, emails sent in December and January, nor one question asking what I was talking about, not one request for more information (I know Kliewer received it as the initial email bounced as the City had listed him as “Don” and not “Donald” for his email, and I sent it to the correct one.). I sent numerous links to actions taken by other City Councils for consideration.

… and I know I spoke about ICE before the Council in January, as did others, January12, 2026:

JANUARY 12, 2026 RED WING CITY COUNCIL MEETING

… and at the January 26th meeting, MANY, MANY others spoke, from 16:16 to 1:34:17:

JANUARY 25, 2026 RED WING CITY COUNCIL MEETING

If they don’t want to do the job, aren’t even curious, don’t want to know, or don’t want to acknowledge the truth, basic facts, of what’s going on in Red Wing, why run for office? What exactly are they doing as Council members? These two were supporters of “Recall City Hall,” claiming malfeasance or malfeasance. By their “NO!” votes, that tells me they support ICE in Red Wing? No? Show me! Renounce the Trump administration’s immigration policies, renounce the illegal behavior of ICE (ICE/DHS/CBP). Look in the mirror, consider your performance and representation of the people of the Wards you represent. Is it misfeasance or malfeasance? Ron Goggin and Don Kliewer should recall what that means!

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

And an aside, but important because the colloquy during the 9.B discussion of changes to the organizational chart was non-responsive and dismissive, “shades of Bondi” in City Hall.

In discussing the changes to the organizational chart, and who was taking on the duties of the Administrative Services Director, a position no longer existing, there was discussion of the requirement that if the Council Administrator is absent, the Administrative Services Director was to take on that role.

Except in one place, there was no “discussion had!” Lambert raised the issue of who was acting when Heineman was not present, a duty assigned to the Administrative Services position that, again, no longer exists. At ~3:03:30, Norton asked who had taken that role in Heineman’s 2 prior absences. There was mobius avoidance of answering, and then, at ~3:03:55, DIRECT REFUSAL TO ANSWER — Heineman said, “I respectfully decline to answer the question…” WOW, how is an answer like that acceptable? Does he need to be reminded who he works for? Is that not open insubordination?

… and immediately following, Heineman was then saved by Biese’s calling the question! What’s up with that?

You’ve got to listen, again, start at 3:03:30, and pay attention at 3:03:55.

https://redwingmn.portal.civicclerk.com/event/3942/media