Legalectric

In Massachusetts, a case has come down supporting a person’s right to be rude in seeking redress from government:

Keep in mind this is Massachusetts, but we had something similar in Minnesota, after Robin Hensel was hauled out of a Little Falls City Council meeting, and she took it up to the Minnesota Supreme Court:

This Minnesota opinion so concerned Red Wing’s former police chief Pohlman that he initiated Ordinance 115, designed to give police additional power to remove people from City Council meetings, even after consulting with the County Attorney (hmmmm, why?) who said it was not necessary, not needed. What was Pohlman trying to do? Why? What was he afraid of?

Red Wing’s Ordinance #115 – Why?

Here’s the letter I’d written then:

Ordinance #115 – disruptions at Council meetings?

Monday night, the Council took up Ordinance #115, triggered by the recent Minnesota Supreme Court’s Hensel decision. That decision held that the law defining conduct that “disturbs an assembly or meeting, not unlawful in its character” as disorderly conduct was unconstitutional, “a serious overbreadth problem.” Here, the City has decided to consider an ordinance of its own with language that puts the City on the wrong side of the law. Why would the City want to do this?

The discussion was good – I’m grateful members raised Constitutional issues, the 1^st Amendment, and its broad definitions. One said “We’d instructed staff after we got information,” the City Attorney had been instructed to draft the ordinance. “We were asked to address this.” By whom? It’s not gone through committee process. The packet’s item 9B was a memo from Roger Pohlman, Chief of Police, requesting a Motion to introduce the Ordinance.  Councilor Hove noted that there haven’t been disruptions for years, since back when the Council met upstairs! Others, including the City Attorney, noted that in addition to city policy, there is applicable law. Only part of the disorderly conduct statute (Minn. Stat. 609.72) was held unconstitutional, and parts remain, including “engages in offensive, obscene, abusive, boisterous, or noisy conduct or in offensive, obscene, or abusive language tending reasonably to arouse alarm, anger, or resentment in others.”

Why use Council time on this non-issue, particularly where the City has policies in place regarding disruption? What was most concerning were Chief Pohlman’s reasons for requesting this ordinance.  First, he noted that police use of force practices limit what level of force may be used, and “if individual becomes passive, resistant” this ordinance was back up to use force to remove someone. He raised this issue of level of force twice. The other claimed justification was liability issues if someone claims injury when removed, that it’s “difficult to use policy to support our case.” This is an issue?

As Alan Muller was quoted in your article, “people disrupt meetings — people behave aggressively — when they feel that behaving politely and with restraint isn’t working.” Council President Biese cut off Muller’s statement just as he was finishing!  In my own experience, I’ve been shushed by Biese for objecting when my Ash Mining clients had no opportunity to speak before the Council approved that scheme. I’ve also been ordered removed from a St. Croix Falls/Taylors Falls joint Council meeting by then Mayor Lundgren for merely asking a question, raising a financial corruption issue, in a public comment period.  Lundgren was later charged and plead guilty to Theft and Misconduct in Office. Sometimes being heard requires standing up.

A primary outcome of the Red Wing Citizens Assembly was recognition that the City Council needs to be welcoming, transparent, that the Council must listen to citizens, and welcome public engagement. Ordinance #115 is a visible step in the opposite direction

Carol A. Overland

I must admit, I get so tired of over and over and over and over harping on the basic bottom line, that we DON’T NEED MORE TRANSMISSION. But oh well… here we go again. Just filed Reply Comments on the Biennial Transmission Report:

Once more with feeling:

2021 Biennial Transmission Report

The deadline for Comments on the Lava Ridge wind project Draft Environmental Impact Statement has been extended to April 20, 2023. This is the wind project near, or nearly surrounding, the Minidoka National Historical Site, depending on the siting allowed.

Want to make a comment? Here’s how:

Here are links, starting with the Executive Summary and in order of appearance (there’s really no easy way to do this, and be prepared, just that first one with the narrative, it’s 578 pages long, and it’s the most important for the overview):

• https://eplanning.blm.gov/public_projects/2013782/200493266/20072054/250078236/Lava_Ridge_DEIS_V1_ExecSum-Chapters.pdf
• https://eplanning.blm.gov/public_projects/2013782/200493266/20072051/250078233/Lava_Ridge_DEIS_V2a_App1_POD_(1%20of%202).pdf
• https://eplanning.blm.gov/public_projects/2013782/200493266/20072053/250078235/Lava_Ridge_DEIS_V2b_App1_POD_(1%20of%202).pdf
• https://eplanning.blm.gov/public_projects/2013782/200493266/20072055/250078237/Lava_Ridge_DEIS_V3_Apps2-4_and_6-11.pdf
• https://eplanning.blm.gov/public_projects/2013782/200493266/20072050/250078232/Lava_Ridge_DEIS_V4a_App5_(1%20of%2013).pdf
• https://eplanning.blm.gov/public_projects/2013782/200493266/20072052/250078234/Lava_Ridge_DEIS_V4b_App5_(2%20of%2013).pdf
• https://eplanning.blm.gov/public_projects/2013782/200493266/20072056/250078238/Lava_Ridge_DEIS_V4c_App5_(3%20of%2013).pdf
• https://eplanning.blm.gov/public_projects/2013782/200493266/20072057/250078239/Lava_Ridge_DEIS_V4d_App5_(4%20of%2013).pdf
• https://eplanning.blm.gov/public_projects/2013782/200493266/20072061/250078243/Lava_Ridge_DEIS_V4e_App5_(5%20of%2013).pdf
• https://eplanning.blm.gov/public_projects/2013782/200493266/20072058/250078240/Lava_Ridge_DEIS_V4f_App5_(6%20of%2013).pdf
• https://eplanning.blm.gov/public_projects/2013782/200493266/20072059/250078241/Lava_Ridge_DEIS_V4g_App5_(7%20of%2013).pdf
• https://eplanning.blm.gov/public_projects/2013782/200493266/20072060/250078242/Lava_Ridge_DEIS_V4h_App5_(8%20of%2013).pdf
• https://eplanning.blm.gov/public_projects/2013782/200493266/20072062/250078244/Lava_Ridge_DEIS_V4i_App5_(9%20of%2013).pdf
• https://eplanning.blm.gov/public_projects/2013782/200493266/20072063/250078245/Lava_Ridge_DEIS_V4j_App5_(10%20of%2013).pdf
• https://eplanning.blm.gov/public_projects/2013782/200493266/20072064/250078246/Lava_Ridge_DEIS_V4k_App5_(11%20of%2013).pdf
• https://eplanning.blm.gov/public_projects/2013782/200493266/20072065/250078247/Lava_Ridge_DEIS_V4l_App5_(12%20of%2013).pdf
• https://eplanning.blm.gov/public_projects/2013782/200493266/20072101/250078283/Lava_Ridge_DEIS_V4m_App5_(13%20of%2013).pdf

Go to the “Friends of Minidoka” for some guidelines and suggestions for comments:

Friends of Minidoka – Lava Ridge page

Big solar projects, utility scale projects taking up 2,500-3,500 acres of prime farmland, are an issue here in the midwest. There are legitimate problems, primarily runoff and erosion necessitating drainage mitigation and large ponds; and the problem of fencing around the project funneling wildlife onto the roads and highways.

Anyway, there’s been some attention paid to these issues, in one case by none other than my “friends” at Great Plains Institute, who were part of a federal study on stormwater management:

That’s good, an admission that there are problems with water draining off all these acres of impervious surface.

And this just came through today from the Environmental Quality Board:

The guidance has a link to a way to find “high value” resources:

Most high value resources described in this guidance document can be identified using Minnesota
Conservation Explorer (MCE).

Last night’s Red Wing City Council meeting (here on youtube, (Agenda Item 10C starts ~2:22) was a display of Council President Biese, Council members Kliewer and Farrar, and Mayor Wilson’s inability to “read the room” in putting forth a proposal to eliminate public comment for those participating virtually, people like MOI who often comment and show up virtually, and to make the “Statement of Intent” optional.

In the bEagle:

Virtual public comment discussion divided council

What these folks did was meet in secret, a meeting with no notice, not public, and developed Resolution 7852. They tried to claim that it was an Agenda Committee meeting, FALSE! It was NOT an Agenda meeting. Thankfully Kay Kuhlman, Council Admin, did correct that false statement for the record, noting it was separate from the properly noticed “Agenda Committee” meeting, it was NOT an “Agenda Committee” meeting. GOOD, except Kuhlman DID participate in that private, secret, meeting. And nevermind that the purpose of an “Agenda Meeting” is to set the agenda, not to go over Council Rules & Procedures and rewrite them!

Here’s the “Statement of Intent” that they want to make optional:

Apparently some have a problem with, and do not “agree to treat everyone with courtesy, dignity, and respect.” And that they “will listen to all sides of an issue, encourage participation…” yeah, obviously some have a problem with that…

Big thanks to, in order of appearance, Patricia Allende De Jung, Martha Harris, Alan Muller, Terri Cook, and MOI, who spoke against adoption of these changes.

CLICK HERE FOR LINK, Agenda Item 10C begins at ~2:23. Oh, great… the video is screwed up on the City’s page. Until then, this youtube.