Legalectric

Last night’s meeting was disappointing. No action on the Recall legal action. And few showed up. Not what I was expecting!

On the other hand, Mayor Wilson wanted Kent Laugen, who has been actively involved in the Recall effort, to be appointed to the Port Authority. As with his attempted appointment of Janie Farrar, another Recall proponent, that Laugen appointment motion failed for a second.

Here’s the missive I sent to the City Council yesterday:

Overland Comment on Recall Petition to City Council today

And here’s the Petition that was filed on Friday:

Frivolous Recall Lawsuit Filed

In the Rochester Post Bulletin, linked, about the Recall City Hall lawsuit:

Red Wing recall takes next big step with lawsuit

Suit seeks remedy for city council not approving special recall election after group gathered the required signatures.

Written By: Brian Todd | 9:08 am, Aug. 10, 2021

RED WING — Late Friday afternoon, the Recall City Hall committee in Red Wing took the next step in its efforts to bring six members of the city council to a special election.

The lawsuit, filed on behalf of Red Wing residents George Hintz, Peter Lang, Judith Kjome, Stephen Lind, Betty Kalember and Sheryl Voth, asks the 1st District Court “for correction of a deliberate ballot omission or, alternatively, for a Writ of Mandamus directing the City of Red Wing to hold an election for the recall of six city councilmembers in accordance with the strictures of the municipal charter.”

The petition points to what it calls several undisputed facts. They include that in each ward or wards at least 20 percent of registered voters signed petitions to recall council members Becky Norton, Evan Brown, Erin Buss, Andy Klitzke, Dean Hove and Laurel Stinson. However, the city council voted 6-1 – with all six council members up for recall voting no, and council member Kim Beise voting yes – on multiple occasions not to hold a special election.

In the petition, Greg Joseph, a Waconia, Minn.-based attorney representing the recall group, notes how the Red Wing City Charter states, “the clerical officer shall transmit it to the Council without delay and shall also officially notify the person sought to be recalled of the sufficiency of the petition and of the pending action. The Council shall, at its next meeting, by resolution provide for filing dates and other provisions necessary for the holding of a special recall election not less than 45 nor more than 60 days after such meeting.”

Joseph said it’s that directive to order an election that the city council has rejected, and that is the reason for the lawsuit.

However, not every resident of Red Wing sees it the same way.

Carol Overland, a local attorney who has expressed her support for the city council and its actions, said the public does not have a legal right to a recall election, and a firm case of malfeasance or nonfeasance – the justification for a recall – is absent in the recall effort.

[Original – since corrected: The idea that the petitioners who ran the recall efforts could determine what meets the legal definition of malfeasance or nonfeasance, she said, is absurd.] [Correction, I said “voters” because that’s what they’re arguing, that the voters should decide in an election whether there’s been malfeasance or nonfeasance, so insert “voters” here — it’s fixed now.]

The idea that the voters could determine what meets the legal definition of malfeasance or nonfeasance, she said, is absurd.

Council President Becky Norton agrees.

“The (Red Wing City) Charter and the Minnesota Constitution are clear that elected officials can only be recalled for malfeasance or nonfeasance,” Norton wrote in response to questions from the Post Bulletin. Norton went on to cite a case from 1959, Jacobsen v. Nagel. “The Minnesota Supreme Court has held that the same malfeasance and nonfeasance standard that applies to state officials applies to council members of a charter city.”

If the conduct of the council members does not constitute malfeasance or nonfeasance, Norton concluded, there is no obligation to schedule a recall election, which is why the city council was justified in its action.https://www.postbulletin.com/news/government-and-politics/7144940-Red-Wing-recall-takes-next-big-step-with-lawsuit

Kent Laugen, another local attorney not directly connected to the case, said while the lawsuit does not focus on whether the burden of malfeasance or nonfeasance has been reached, there is precedent from the courts saying that decision is left up to the voters.

[Precedent? Show us! It doesn’t exist][“not directly connected to the case” but DIRECTLY connected to the Recall — see quotes in other PB articles]

Whether or not there is a special election, the next election the six council members face is going to be tough, Laugen said.

The court has yet to set a hearing date for the lawsuit.

Here’s what I’ve been able to find about MISO J407, the number provided by Xcel Energy in their 16-777 Resource Acquisition docket that included the Freeborn Wind project:

Xcel_Petition_201610-125953-02

And from Xcel’s Petition on interconnection (click for larger version):

And here’s what I could find from MISO:

miso-february-2015-initial-posting

20170117 IPTF Item 01f DPP Updates

20160714 IPTF Item 02 DPP Study Updates

GI-FeS-2014-DEC-J407-Report

GI DPP 2015 FEB West SIS PJM Addendum R2

There ya have it!

Xcel Energy’s rate case just received another interesting twist — a request of the PUC that the parties to the “settlement agreement” show their work!  I love it when that happens.

20168-124453-01_PUC Letter_8-29-2016

PUC staff wants detailed information about how they reached the numbers they did, how the settlement relates to each of the parties initial positions and testimony, etc., to “show your work!”  The PUC staff is requesting this information so that the Commission can determine whether to accept, modify, or reject the partial settlement agreement.  And note that the parties are mostly those e21Participants who signed off on Xcel’s Exe21_Initiative scam.

GOOD!  Take a close look, PUC!

To review the filings in this docket, go to this PUC SEARCH DOCUMENTS PAGE and search for docket “15-826.”

Last night’s Xcel Energy Rate Case public hearing was the largest crowd of the ones I attended.  There were also more public comments than at any hearing I’d attended.

To look at the docket, which includes testimony, go HERE and search for PUC Docket 15-826.  The testimony, particularly that of the OAG-RUD, Commerce DER, and AARP are worth a look.

Now, it’s time to get to writing comments.  Probably the Rebuttal Testimony won’t be filed in time to read and comment on, grrrrrrrrrrrrr.

AARP work on notice and turnout seems to have helped, and a couple of folks commented that they’d read my Letter to the Editor in the Republican bEagle:

Letter: Speak up at Xcel rate case hearing