Legalectric

UPDATE: Were the ~250 who “signed” the Pohlman “Petition” notified that he was seeking a new job, appeared before and was offered position by Lakefield City Council on March 1, and his acceptance was announced by the Council March 8? That “Petition” was demanding “that Chief Pohman be immediately reinstated…” (I have this in quotes because there are no signatures, just typed names).

A little birdie told me that Red Wing’s fired ex-Police Chief Roger Pohlman was lining up a new job in Lakefield, MN, a town I know of from transmission lines, the Split-Rock-Lakefield Jct., and ITC’s Line 4:

It’s a tiny town, 1,753 people. Add two more soon, as sure enough, Roger Pohlman has been hired as their new Chief of Police, a position open for over 8 months! Here’s the solicitation, still on the City site (Police_Chief_(1).doc):

Note this tidbit, in the 2nd article below, where Council offered him the job:

Pohlman said he wants to come to Lakefield to finish his career on a strong note and serve a tight-knit community close to home that shares his values.

Here are the two articles I could find, each following a Council meeting:

And the report from the Council meeting the week before, where they offered him the job (I wonder if he applied before, or after, he was fired):

Now that all the folks who got all worked up wanting to do a recall of SIX City Council members over Pohlman’s firing will learn he’s off to Lakefield, what will they do with all that sturm and drang? Here’s the “Petition” that was filed, with some wild “Whereas” clauses and a typed list of names, NO SIGNATURES! Here it is, in a prior post:

Pohlman support “petition”

March 9th, 2021

This Petition was made public February 19,2021 at 10:43 a.m., just hours before Red Wing’s Police Chief Roger Pohlman was fired, by Janie Farrar on our Red Wing Convo page. At the time, because personnel matters are confidential, I wondered what information they were basing this Petition on, and really, what would it accomplish? He wasn’t even fired yet, and nothing was public. Who was leaking, and who was spreading false information, and how would anyone be able to discern truth from lie?

Although the Petition was posted on a community fb page, the signature pages were not, and so I filed a Data Practices Act request, and check this out — there aren’t signatures! Committee to Recall City Hall? We’ll see how this goes. If this is how they do a “petition,” oh, my…

The charter says that they’d need 20% of the registered voters in a ward, or combination of wards, or in the City, depending on representation of the council member they want to recall. As of November 3, 2020, there were 9,905 registered voters in the City of Red Wing, Wards 1-4. What does 20% look like?

• Ward 1 – 2,674 registered voters = 534
• Ward 2 – 2,575 registered voters = 515
• Ward 3 – 2,617 registered voters = 523
• Ward 4 – 2,424 registered voters = 484

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

The City Council did their job and fired Pohlman. If it were up to me, I’d have taken Pohlman to the woodshed over “Ordinance 115.” Thankfully that was tabled over 2 years ago and hasn’t returned — info here:

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

Anyway, here’s the Petition,and note the language, particularly in that first “Whereas” clause, and the part about “anti-police protesters.”

Whew, time to take a breather. We had two briefs due at 1:30 p.m. today, and got them filed with 1/2 hour to spare! Let’s hear it for the power of Doritos! (Only way I got through Contracts and Corporations in law school was a two-fisted supply of Doritos and Haagen Dazs)

Here are our Grant County Intervenor briefs. Here’s the one for the Grant County Solar docket focusing on the CPCN application for that one project, followed by Applicant-Grant County Solar/NextEra:

And our non-party brief in the WP&L acquisition docket for SIX solar projects covering over 5,400 acres, followed by the others:

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

Rep. Zoe Lofgren has released a “Social Media Review” that “lists public social media posts from Members of the U.S. House of Representatives who were sworn-in to office in January 2021 and who voted to overturn the 2020 presidential election.” Most of the articles I see about this do not link to the actual “Social Media Review” so here it is, and below, state by state.

She is correct in challenging Representatives who supported and/or engaged in the (failed) insurrection of January 6, 2021:

Fourteenth Amendment 

• Section 3. No Person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
  • Amdt14.S3.1 Disqualification from Holding Office
    • Amdt14.S3.1.1  Disqualification Clause

For Minnesota, the “Social Media Review” features “our” Rep. Michelle Fischbach and Rep. Jim Hagedorn.

• Contact Rep. Michelle Fischbach
• Contact Rep. Jim Hagedorn

Social Media Review

The review is LARGE, it’s a HUGE file. You can also look up findings state by state:

• Alabama             (PDF)
• Arizona               (PDF)
• Arkansas            (PDF)
• California           (PDF)
• Colorado            (PDF)
• Florida                (PDF)
• Georgia               (PDF)
• Idaho                   (PDF)
• Illinois                  (PDF)
• Indiana                 (PDF)
• Kansas                  (PDF)
• Kentucky              (PDF)
• Louisiana             (PDF)
• Michigan              (PDF)
• Minnesota            (PDF)
• Mississippi           (PDF)
• Missouri               (PDF)
• Montana               (PDF)
• Nebraska              (PDF)
• New Mexico         (PDF)
• New York              (PDF)
• North Carolina     (PDF)
• Ohio                      (PDF)
• Oklahoma            (PDF)
• Oregon                 (PDF)
• Pennsylvania       (PDF)
• South Carolina    (PDF)
• Tennessee           (PDF)
• Texas                   (PDF)
• Utah                    (PDF)
• Virginia               (PDF)
• West Virginia     (PDF)
• Wisconsin          (PDF)

Remember this storm and the absurdly price-gougingly high ERCOT market? Folks stuck with bills for thousands, even over TEN thousand dollars for electricity during that time?

Here’s what one Texas co-op did to protect its members:

Texas power company seeks bankruptcy protection after storm

From the article:

Brazos said that it received excessively high invoices from the Electric Reliability Council of Texas for collateral and for purported cost of electric service. The invoices were required to be paid within days. As a cooperative, Brazos’ costs are passed through to its members and retail consumers served by its members. Brazos decided that it won’t pass on the ERCOT costs to its members or the consumers.

THIS! Another reason we need more co-operatives, eh?

STRENGTH THROUGH COOPERATION!