Legalectric

City of Red Wing, and particularly the Council Administrator, are plugging ahead in effort to limit public comment. The meeting of July 29, 2026 was disturbing to put it mildly. There will be further discussion tomorrow, August 10, 2026.

Be there or be square.

Where did this attempt to limit public comment come from? Two things happened at previous meetings:

• I’d noticed that language stated at the beginning of public comment was limiting public comment beyond what was in the Council’s Rules & Procedures. After I realized that, I sent an email to Council President, the one saying the limiting words, and then to the full Council. The matter was referred to the City Attorney and excess language removed from the prelude to Public Comments.
• A request for a moment of silence was requested by a commenter, and was declared out of order and it escalated to removal from the meeting (!) and a citation for disorderly conduct, then dropped later that evening.
• At an earlier meeting, a strong objection to repeated mispronunciation of a name (I’ve observed this with repeated mispronunciation of Alan’s name as MUE-ller not MULL-er, despite his multiple public comments before which he recites his name and correct pronunciation of his name!)

At the July 29, 2026 Council meeting, four options were presented by the Council Administrator to the Council at the July 29, 2026 meeting, three severely altering Public Comment:

WHAT? And this specific change requested:

WHAT? Yes, that’s direct cut & paste from page 2-3 of the Council Administrator’s Staff Report:

WTAF? Quick, it’s Data Practices Time.

There was an Agenda Request, very specific, very limited in scope — and during the extensive discussion during the July 29, 2026 meeting of the Council Administrator’s Report and the options presented, Kim Biese said “I didn’t ask for this” though no more. Here’s the form:

I specifically wanted to see this Agenda Request after I’d heard Kim Biese state “I didn’t ask for this.” Good thing I did, this verifies the very limited nature of the request, focused on “decorum” (discuss what they can and cannot say) and process suggestion about using cards so names aren’t pronounced (seems lame to me). So how did it broaden to this attempt to limit and/or eliminate public comment?

After I’d sent the June 8, 2026 emails regarding the limiting language as a prelude to Public Comment, I sent another on July 27 after reading the Council Administrator’s Report days before the meeting:

Some time after Kim Biese had said “I didn’t ask for this” the City Attorney, addressing the public comment discussion, brought up that I’d raised the inconsistency between the language stated and the language of the Council Rules & Procedures. That the offending language was deleted from the pre-Public Comment statement made it clear that this was taken under advisement and changed! This was verified via the response to my Data Practices Act Request:

We know the City Attorney’s opinion is privileged:

And this:

And then this:

In short, the language to address this is already there, as noted by City Attorney Amy Mace:

I included a reference to this information in the very last line of the staff memorandum without disclosing any of the specific details about the legal opinion. The line is as follows, “Based on a legal opinion from City Attorney Amy Mace, the City Attorney believes the City Council can continue to prohibit personal attacks during the public comment period, and there are court cases from other jurisdictions that provide support for prohibiting personal attacks.”

And followed by this email:

The key words here are: “This statement already provides the Council President with the necessary authority to maintain order in the Council Chambers, and staff can administratively provide a brief step-by-step process for you to follow if something like last week happens again.”

Is Chief Sather’s Memo CONFIDENTIAL? What’s his take on this?

FYI, this limiting language is in Council Rules and Procedures already — and it’s the Council President’s responsibility to control the meeting:

Here are links to the recordings of the July meetings:

• July 13, 2026, City Council Meeting: https://redwingmn.portal.civicclerk.com/event/3947/media

• July 27, 2026, City Council Meeting: https://redwingmn.portal.civicclerk.com/event/3980/media

Much ado about nothing, nothing that isn’t already covered by existing Council Rules and Procedures, and unrelated to the Agenda Item Request. And we can see where this came from — NOT direction of the City Council. The City Attorney Opinion is confidential, but it’s clear that the City Attorney said that it was already covered.

Just STOP with these efforts to eliminate public comment.

FYI, what this feels like, what this looks like, is a rehash of Pohlman’s REJECTED/WITHDRAWN/SIDELINED Ordinance 115:

Ordinance #115 LTE in Republican Eagle December 8th, 2017

Red Wing’s Ordinance #115 – Why? December 1st, 2017

And from Massachusetts, a later court decision:

The right to be rude! March 24th, 2023

Stumping for GOOGLE DATA CENTERS?!?! What a legacy for Michael Noble after 30+ years heading ME3 and Fresh Energy! What a legacy for Allen Gleckner who for more than a deade was head lobbyists (titles vary!) for Fresh Energy! What a legacy for RENEW Wisconsin and former PSC Commissioner Tyler Huebner!

Q&A: Michael Noble departs Fresh Energy with optimism for future of climate policy

And talking the talk 26 years ago:

Michael Noble, Minnesotans for an Energy-Efficient Economy

Oh, but wait, it’s not just Michael “Noble” who’s left for Google — Gleckner was at least honest about what he’d be doing, and though signing filings for Google, it took him a full six months to register as lobbyist for Google, just days before the PUC’s public meeting about the Google data center in Pine Island:

Thank you and farewell By Allen Gleckner | December 12, 2025

Ever since the 1994 Prairie Island deal and compensation for PIIC becoming the “Renewable Energy Development Fund,” and then the 2002 TRANSlink deal, we knew what they were, though we still don’t know their price. Here we have Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy (MCEA), Izaak Walton League – Midwest (Wind on the Wires was Walton program then); Minnesotans for an Energy Efficient Economy (ME3, now Fresh Energy), and North American Water Office, none of them are intervening opposing transmission (and that’s not even getting into all the “grants” to advocate for coal gasification):

And then there’s RENEW Wisconsin & former Commissioner of the Wisconsin Public Service Commission Tyler Huebner also now stumping for Google:

At the April 13, 2026 Red Wing City Council meeting, Mayor Iocco said that he’d been to North Dakota to talk with them about what it means to host a nuclear plant.

Iocco gave a short report on his activities since the last meeting, part of which was a trip to North Dakota to speak with their nuclear committee, that they’re wanting to build a nuclear plant, and he was there to tell them about hosting a nuclear plant. ???

Here’s the link, this starts at ~1:39:

https://redwingmn.portal.civicclerk.com/event/3944/media

Look who else is a part of this — are we surprised?

The North Dakota legislature has an “Advanced Nuclear Energy Committee” and here are links.

FYI, TODAY and TOMORROW, they’re in Idaho, INL.

• AGENDA
• VIDEO – 4/21 – it’s live… (check section on E.O.s and “regulatory reform”)
• VIDEO – 4/22 – should be posted tomorrow

Here are meetings with links. Iocco said that this March 24th meeting was the 3rd he’d been to, LISTEN TO WHAT MAYOR IOCCO SAYS, BEGINNING AT 11:04. But first, here’s the meeting minutes version of what he said:

March 24, 2026 – 10:00 am to 4:00 pm CDT

• Agenda
• Meeting Video – Iocco starts at 11:04
• Minutes

December 15, 2025 – 10:00 am to 4:00 pm CST

• Agenda
• Meeting Video
• Minutes

September 3, 2025 – 9:00 am to 5:00 pm CDT

• Agenda
• Meeting Video
• Minutes

Committee Memorandums

• Advanced Nuclear Energy Study – Background Memorandum (PDF)
• Request for Proposal and Proposal Responses – Advanced Nuclear Energy Study (PDF)
• Supplementary Rules of Operation and Procedure of the North Dakota Legislative Management

Is this promotion in the name of the City of Red Wing authorized? Was there a message approved to be delivered?

I sure had questions when I heard this, and so I filed a Data Practices Act Request yesterday:

Just out, the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission has approved Xcel Energy‘s request to increase the Cannon Falls Power Purchase Agreement by 45-70MW. The Commerce ditty after the order explains what Xcel wants and their justification for it. Is it related to the Cannon Falls data center across the way???

Data Center loads? this 45-70MW is comparatively small. To track large loads, this could be useful:

MISO’s Large Load Working Group. From that page: