Yup, that’s “our” state Representative Pam Altendorf. I had to send them a missive, as she sure doesn’t represent a very large bunch of constituents! So this went to the Council:


All –

Unfortunately, I cannot attend on Monday, have to work way out southwest, a meeting I can’t miss. That said, this is the first of two missives about Monday’s agenda.


I hope that you all will review bills “authored” and “co-authored” by Rep. Altendorf. Consider what she’s doing FOR us, all of us, and what’s she’s doing AGAINST us. Also consider what she’s doing that misses the mark of the charge of a state Representative. Check the links, and I’ll raise a few examples below:

Remember that Rep. Pam Altendorf ran as an “America First” candidate. What’s America First? Don’t know? “America First” is white supremacy and nationalism at its core. A visit to the Charles Lindbergh House and Museum in Little Falls would be a good start. I’m shocked that anyone would advertise being an “America First” candidate, but too many have no idea what “America First” means. Sarah Campbell’s “Behold America” is also an excellent source:

From Rep. Altendorf’s campaign website, “Endorsed by Mike Lindell” as an “America First” candidate. SNORT! For some reason this video has been scrubbed off her “Endorsements” page on her campaign website — but I found the video, HERE –>

Speaking of My Pillow, the market has spoken:

MyPillow is auctioning off equipment after retailers pull its products

Altendorf was also endorsed by Steve Drazkowski:

“Extensive work recalling RW City Council.” Hmmmm, what did she do?

A state House Representative is charged with, has taken an oath, to represent their constituents, ALL their constituents, not some, and to observe and support the Constitutions of the U.S. and the State of Minnesota.

U.S. Constitution’s 14th Amendment anyone??? Here’s an example of a bill where she was “Chief Author,” the point of which was to make voting more difficult, eliminate voting rights, and suppress voting:

And her HC0003, a bizarre bill “denouncing the horrors of socialism” — you’ve got to read this — click on the HC0003 link! I’d guess she objects to things like Social Security and Medicare; MNSure; fire and police departments; public schools; the state vo-tech, college, and university system; ag programs and nutrition support; snow plowing; roads and bridges; our state, county, and city park systems; utility regulation; etc. This bill is a clear example of lack of understanding of “socialism,” conflating “socialism” and “communism,” and failure to understand the basics of “democracy,” and I’d presume lack of understanding of the distinction between democracy and capitalism:

And in the “Co-Authored” bills she signed on to:

State Rep., now state Senator Drazkowski would remember my sign from the state candidates’ rally at Bay Point Park a few years ago.  If I wasn’t 100 miles away, I’d bring it to Monday’s meeting:

Carol A. Overland, Attorney at Law, sworn on oath to support the U.S. and state Constitutions.

Former Red Wing Police Chief Roger Pohlman statement

President Norton, Council Members, and Mayor Wilson.  Thank you for the opportunity to restore my professional reputation with this name clearing hearing.

The purpose of this hearing is to restore my professional reputation and good name, both of which were damaged by the Red Wing City Council following the Special Meeting held on February 19, 2021.

I requested to attend that closed session meeting regarding “a proposed agreement and release of all claims” as stated in the meeting notice, but was denied; therefore, I was not given an opportunity to address your false claims. During this hearing, I will address 1) Inconsistency from paid administrative leave to termination; 2) Comments made by Council Member Brown in a Star Tribune interview; and 3) Comments made by Council President Norton in the termination letter and interview to media outlets.

Prior to discussing the events of the February 19th City Council meeting, we must back up to the February 8th City Council meeting.  I first learned from Administrator Kuhlmann at 3:00 PM that the Council wished to discuss my job performance. She advised me that I could request the meeting to be opened or closed.  Administrator Kuhlmann stated that during the previous year, a city employee was in a similar situation, and by keeping the meeting closed, the Council was able to develop a personal improvement plan for the employee and move forward successfully. 

I consulted with an attorney and we determined to leave the meeting closed.   

After the City Council adjourned on February 8th I received a telephone call from the Council Administrator and the City Attorney at approximately 10:00 PM. I recorded the phone conversation. In preparation for tonight’s hearing I listen to the recording several times, during which I was told repeatedly throughout the call that I was being placed on paid administrative leave for non-disciplinary reasons, and the City wishes to go a different direction.  I trusted what they told me. 

The Red Wing City Council created a false and defamatory impression about me in connection with my termination on February 19th. I was told repeatedly by City Attorney Amy Mace, during the February 8th call, that the paid administrative leave was for non-disciplinary reasons, and that if I did not resign, “Kay was authorized to terminate my employment” again for non-disciplinary reasons as the City wished

to go a different direction.  Trusting their words, I proceeded to move forward with my professional career.

The Red Wing City Council then contradicted their initial statement and on February 19th voted to terminate me for disciplinary reasons.  They also released the termination letter to the media, prior to my receipt of the notice. The  City did not redact my home address, but did redact the section of the letter which contained instructions for requesting a Veterans Preference hearing.

In short, the Council told the world, in a document dated February 19, 2021, that I was an untrustworthy person. That statement creates a false and defamatory impression of me, limiting my options for future career opportunities, including high-security clearance positions.

This letter also contained a totally different message than the initial “non-disciplinary, going a different direction” tone of February 8th.

It is my constitutional right to work and earn a living. The comments made by the Council damaged my professional standing and association in our community and the professional world.

The Council’s attempts to interfere with and micromanage the day-to-day operations of the police department caused additional damage to my professional reputation. In a June 2020, email to Administrator Kuhlmann, I stated that the City Council was inappropriately injecting themselves into police communications with the public.

As an example, a Council member took it upon herself to provide police policies to a group even though I had stated at the June 6th event that the policies would all be posted online at the Police Department website. As a result, citizens immediately began contacting council members instead of working with me, which hampered my ability to build positive relationships with members of this group.  I believe respectful, open communication is the best way to solve community problems.

Members of the Council have implied that I purposefully left them out of community meetings between citizens and the police. This is false. In fact, I fully implemented a process to involve Council members as stipulated in the Public Meeting Policy which was passed by the council on July 13, 2020. 

Coordination was demonstrated for the July 2nd community meeting, which emails show coordinating efforts as early as June 17th.

The simple fact is – the Council was always invited to neighborhood meetings, and once the policy was implemented, a process was in place to comply with the Public Meeting Policy.  I did express my concern to Administrator Kuhlmann that in certain situation this policy delays my community engagement efforts and gives community members the impression that I am slow to respond or that I don’t care.

Now let me continue with two examples of Council interference with building positive public relations and further damage to my reputation

The first example took place in July 2020, I expressed my concerns to my supervisor regarding a July 18th social media post from a City Council member on Facebook.  My concern was that several council members were possibly undermining my community policing efforts to work with all residents. Again, damaging my professional reputation within the community.

The second example occurred on September 4th when the Council President participated in an anti-police protest outside my residence, which occurred from approximately 9:00 PM to after Midnight. Later, when I asked the Council President concerning his presence at the protest, he stated he was there to keep the peace. What he failed to recognize or understand is that his presence condoned their actions and implied support for the message on their signs, again damaging my professional reputation.  

Now let me turn to my interaction with the Council regarding the “Advisory Team.”

On September 23, 2020, Administrator Kuhlmann and three Council members met with me to discuss the selection process of the officers for the Advisory Team. I explained why some officers that the Council wanted were not available. I explained the Department’s selection process of the two officers that were selected.

After reviewing the video of June 22nd City Council meeting and the June 29th Workshop. The Council did not state that they would be involved in picking the officers. Instead, I received guidance, noting that police would be at the table (equals) and at all meetings. That did not happen.

Moreover, based on guidance and direction that I received from the Council, our strategic plan for 2021 would heavily reflect the 2015 Presidential Task Force on 21st Century Policing and the 2020 MN Attorney General’s and DPS Commissioners Report from the Police Deadly Encounter Working Group, both of which provided

direction on improving relations within communities where those relationships are strained. The Police Department and I were also strong supporters of the City’s effort and involvement regarding the Government Alliance for Racial Equity.

Now to the question of prompt response to Council concerns.

Your statement that I did not respond to citizens or to council members in a timely manner is simply false.

Every week I responded to citizens’ questions in a weekly column entitled ‘Ask the Chief’ and did so for years. Also, my records reflect that not one phone call, email, or meeting request was unanswered or denied.  I cannot control voicemails that are not set up or full of messages and in some instances, I talked to the individual in person. Just because they did not agree with my response does not indicate that I did not respond to them.

My phone and email records also reflect countless communications with Council members. In fact, my phone logs show that since March of 2020 to February 2021 I spent approximately 4 hours on the phone with Council Member Brown and 6.4 hours on the phone with Council Member Norton. 

To be clear, my mandate was to communicate with the Council through my supervisor. Accordingly, I kept my supervisor current on police operations. If she chose not to update council, I supposed she had good reason.

Now to the issue of my performance evaluation.

The 2020 DRAFT evaluation was initially covered with me by Administrator Kuhlmann in early January.  The Council stated that they wanted input on all “officers of the council” evaluations and the Chief of Police was the first evaluation to be completed with this new input procedure from Council. 

Council President Norton justified my termination based on comments in this DRAFT evaluation. 

During my discussion with Administrator Kuhlmann, she stated that for 2020 she rated me an overall 4 out of possible 5.  Looking at the draft report that City Hall released (which the release is questionable, as it is a personnel document, and never finalized let me repeat never finalized) Administrator Kuhlmann had adjusted her rating to an average 3.7 out of possible 5 and the six City Council Members that submitted their comments to Administrator Kuhlmann had an average rating of 3.3 out of 5, just above average overall performance. 

2019 and prior year evaluations complimented me as an employee and made no reference to support Council Member Brown’s statement to the media that “this has been an issue for five years”.

Throughout the historically stressful year of 2020, I stayed true to the highest standards of professional conduct in service to ALL members of our community.

That brings me to the issue of trust.

I resent and deny your false allegations of untrustworthiness. 

To be clear, I was entrusted with the lives of 40 US soldiers’ and 200 Iraqi soldiers during Operation Iraqi Freedom.  I brought every US soldier home.  I lead a Department that was authorized for 35 employees, and was entrusted with a budget of $5.1 million dollars, and every penny is accounted for. I am an honest and trustworthy person. 

I am a Christian, and I believe everyone is created in God’s image as stated in Genesis 1:27.  I treat everyone with kindness and respect and believe that laws and constitutional rights equally apply to ALL members of our community.

On June 6th I stood in central park to demonstrate unity among our police and community members and addressed questions for over 30 minutes.  Council Member Brown even stated in a social media post that “a moment blew my mind…when Chief of Police Roger Pohlman read a statement from (a local activist)”. 

Also, I have emails that reflect my belief in the potential value and efforts of working with the Advisory Team in reviewing Department Policy and improving our relationships, which was the original direction provided by Council in June 2020.  Through my implicit bias and equity training, I fully understand how important it is for all members of the community to be treated equally and fairly, and that is exactly what I attempted to do. I welcomed and support working on police reform. The Law Enforcement Profession can and needs to do better.

To close, the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution provides that no State shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. The City of Red Wing failed to give me a meaningful opportunity to address the Council’s concerns. I was denied due process; therefore, the name clearing hearing is the best way to address your defamatory statements publicly. 

I have much more data but do not wish to cause “data fatigue” this evening. 

Thank you for the opportunity to address the inconsistency with my release of employment, and comments made against me by council members. Your public statements damaged my professional record which was stellar.

I also want to thank the residents of Red Wing for the opportunity to serve them. I kept my oath of office and you were always my top priority.  It was my honor.

Pohlman hired by Lakefield!

March 10th, 2021

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

Hey Red Wing!  Mark your calendars:

City Council Strategic Plan Public Forum & Q&A

Monday, March 18, 2019

6:30 to 8:00 p.m.

Public Library – Foot Room

6:30 to 7:00: Informal Meet and Greet time (snacks and beverages provided)

7:00 to 8:00: Brief presentation, City Council panel discussion, and question-and-answer period with Council members regarding the Strategic Plan draft.

Here’s the 2019 Strategic Plan Draft 3-13-19_201903130811429189-1

And here’s the Red Wing 2040 FINAL for comparison.


At Monday’s City Council meeting, a strange item, 9b, was on the agenda:

09B – Int Ord 115 – Enforcement of Rules of Order for Govt Meetings – CC 11

Here is the link to the video, two options:

CLICK HERE and scroll down to 9b and click for video

MP4 Video

How did this get on the agenda?  It didn’t go through committee…

Look at this discussion of the matter in minutes from previous meeting, September 25, 2017:

First, “City Attorney Amy Mace referenced a recent Minnesota Supreme Court decision that struck down part of the disorderly conduct statute.”  That would be the Hensel decision:


So let’s look at this order of events.  The City’s Rules of Order address disruption of a city meeting, long standing rules.  The Hensel decision comes down September 13, 2017.  The meeting minutes above are September 25, 2017.

Listen to that part of the 9/25 meeting HERE – MP4 (begins at ~ 58:56, goes to ~1:03.00).  Note the City Attorney’s focus on “anger” — behavior that would cause anger, and statements that the public/private aspect of the statute was problematic. That was not part of the rational that Minn. Stat. 609.72, Subd. 2 that was deemed unconstitutional:

(2) disturbs an assembly or meeting, not unlawful in its character; or

Again, the decision:


So between the time the Hensel decision is published and the Council meeting of the 25th, 13 days, the Red Wing Chief of Police goes to the Goodhue County Attorney about it, and that “[t]he County Attorney feels that, as long as these rules are in place, there would be a basis for someone to be removed from a council meeting if they do not stop their disruptive behavior when given an order by the Council President to do so.”  That means that someone discussed this with the City Attorney prior to the 9/25 meeting.  This discussion is begun by “Council President Kim Biese, who asked whether additional discussion is needed with regard to managing a disturbance during a public meeting. So there was some discussion between some parties prior to the meeting.   The City Attorney goes on to say, “the City Attorney’s Office is considering whether language should be added to the City Code to make this type of behavior a misdemeanor offense.”  On whose authority, initiative, direction is this “considering” occurring?   Biese knew of this, City Attorney knew of this, and Chief Pohlman went to the County Attorney about it before the ink was dry on the Hensel decision — and he was told, “no problem.” So why is this happening and on whose direction?   “Discussion” and “consideration” is ongoing despite advice that there is no problem, the City’s rules are sufficient per the County Attorney.

What’s Biese and Chief Pohlman’s concern? Why is City Attorney working on this, and why are we paying for it?

Makes no sense… and this is contrary to the recommendations of the Red Wing Citizens Assembly:

Red Wing Citizens Assembly Event Report

From the report:

And “Better  Public Meetings” was a key component:

Looking forward:

Not only is Ordinance #115 action for a problem that doesn’t exist, it is a step in the wrong direction, away from “Better Public Meetings” and instead hanging a threat over the heads of lawfully participating citizens.

Ordinance #115?  NO!