Whew! Another federal judge comes down on the tRump Travel Ban, and grants a narrow injunction.  Read it here:

17-17168_9th Circuit Hawaii_Travel Ban 3.0

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…

Carol,

You were one of the critical Americans who helped change the course of American history when my father was voted into office last November.

But now more than a year has gone by, and as the media’s attacks become increasingly nasty, the President needs to know – are you still on Team Trump?

Before 2017 comes to an end, my father is hoping to have your name in the books as a Sustaining Member of our movement to Make America Great Again!

Please contribute $1 to renew your Sustaining Membership for the 2017 year.

Please contribute $1 to renew your Sustaining Membership for the 2017 year.

Thank you,

Eric Trump

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

LOCK HIM UP!!!

My Letter to the Editor about misguided and ill-advised Ordinance #115 is in the RW Republican Eagle (bEagle), it’s posted below because it’s not online yet.

UPDATE: Posted online — Ordinance is ‘solution’ looking for a problem

NOTE: ORDINANCE #115 TAKEN OFF DECEMBER 11 COUNCIL MEETING. WON’T BE HEARD UNTIL AFTER JANUARY COUNCIL ANNUAL WORKSHOP… if ever…

Here’s a previous post on the Ordinance and the Council meeting:

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

Also worth noting is the Editorial in the same paper, encouraging people to write — YES!

Column: Letters should make you question and think

Here it is:

17-410+Comments & Draft Site Permit

Now, get to work reading and doing a thorough mark-up!