Legalectric

Ask and you shall receive? Here is the Red Wing budget info in reasonable form, line items so we can see what’s really at issue here:

RED WING 2023 PRELIMINARY BUDGET INFO

When you go to the link, click on the “Fund Summaries” for the various funds, take your pick, and you’ll get charts and graphs and spreadsheets to keep you busy for a long while:

Check out their financial reports. Are these the people you want responsible for City finances?

Some of those who were leading the Red Wing “Recall City Hall” campaign are now running for City Council. Ron Goggin (Wards 1 & 2), Jason Snyder (Ward 3), Ted Seifert (Ward 4), and Janie Farrar (At Large) are running as a bloc in this election cycle — Don Kliewer (Ward 2) won the open seat earlier this year — and as above, you can see they all have been working together:

Candidates for City Council… Recall City Hall… candidates in parade with trailer labeled “Citizens for Responsible Government” and the truck pulling it belongs to ??? Jason Snyder??? Flyer sent around to many in Red Wing by “Citizens for Responsible Government” — as we say in transmission, “it’s all connected.”

How many of the same people are involved in all of these efforts? How many are wearing many hats, and just who is wearing whose hat? How closely were they working together? Look who was funding the Recall efforts! (Campaign Reports – Recall City Hall) Look at the 5 signers sponsoring the Petitions, and look who walked the petitions around and signed Affidavits! (Recall Petitions here! and “Dean Hove 2” Recall Petitions). Look at the candidates, their treasurers, and monetary and in-kind donors for both candidates and Recall.

What about “Citizens for Responsible Government,” the name on the trailer in the parade leading the candidates, festooned with all the candidate signs, and “producer” of that cheesy-but-expensive-to-mail flyer that just landed across the city? The flyer makes wild presumptions, misstatements, and demonstrably false claims, and does not cite to sources for claims made. At the bottom, it states it was written and produced “without any candidate involvement or endorsement” — though the evidence strongly suggests otherwise. Look at the photos above! Look at how the language of the flyer below parrots the points and language of the Recall City Hall page (scrubbed but available via Wayback):

Neither the Red Wing “Citizens for Responsible Govt” nor “Citizens for Responsible Government” are registered as a Committee or fund nor are registered with the Secretary of State. They are for sure not related to the legit “Citizens for Responsible Government” reporting to the Campaign Finance Board, registered as a 302A business corporation, and run by known DFLers in north metro!

Here are the bloc Red Wing City Council candidates Campaign Financial Reports and the Recall City Hall Reports (including documentation of missing $5,569.96 as of November 2021, grown to $5,593.63 as of August 10, 2022), plus photos of candidates and the “Citizens for Responsible Government” trailer, plastered with all of their campaign signs, parading through Red Wing (parade spot paid for by Recall City Hall on July 19, 2022, long after recall over). SEE FOR YOURSELF! (The blue ink comments, circles and arrows, and the orange and yellow highlighting are mine):

If you see any math errors let me know, as I’m at the 46 percentile in math, and though I’ve checked and rechecked, errors can happen — and I’ll correct pronto.

Note: In the Candidate Campaign Financial Report, they’re spending money, more than they’re taking in, with no explanation. What money are they spending? Where did that money they’ve reported spending come from??

Note: The Recall campaign report of November 2021 shows that $5,569.96 disappeared in November, 2021, and it’s up just a bit to $5,593.62 in the August, 2022 report. Where did that money go?

Note: The Recall campaign filed “Amended” reports after I’d pointed out irregularities in its first two reports. The Recall City Hall campaign reports are beyond irregular, and the missing $5,593.62 as of the committee’s August 2022 report is a major issue yet to be corrected.

Note: The Recall City Hall campaign paid for a $300 River City Days parade spot on July 19, 2022 despite the recall effort ending in August nearly a year before! Note also that none of the candidates marching with “Citizens for Responsible Government” paid to be in the parade line-up, and there was no identified “Recall City Hall” contingent. Sure looks, parades, and quacks like a coordinated duck!

Given the connections between the Recall City Hall and the candidates, the ties of candidates to “Citizens for Responsible Government”/”Citizens for Responsible Govt” and a review of their financial filings, what do you think? Is this an example of fiscal responsibility?

• The reports filed are missing much information.
• The numbers on the reports don’t add up.
• Where, when, and how did Recall City Hall’s $5,593.63 disappear?
• Where did the candidates’ get the money state they are spending when it’s a lot more than they report taking in?
• Is there a connection between Recall City Hall money disappearing and candidate money “not received” being spent by campaigns?
• Did Recall City Hall pay for the parade line-up spot used by the candidates AND “Citizens for Responsible Government” at River City Days?
• Where they’re all connected, is it plausible that they’re not coordinating their efforts?

WITH THESE CAMPAIGN FINANCIAL REPORTS, DO THE CANDIDATES DISPLAY THE LEVEL OF FIDUCIARY RESPONSIBILITY NECESSARY TO MAKE FINANCIAL DECISIONS FOR THE CITY OF RED WING?

THROUGH THEIR ACTIONS, DO THE CANDIDATES DISPLAY THE INDEPENDENCE OF MIND AND CRITICAL THOUGHT NECESSARY TO CONSIDER A RANGE OF VIEWPOINTS AND EQUITABLY REPRESENT CONSTITUENTS?

You can find all their campaign reports as filed here on the City page:

2022 Campaign Reports – Red Wing City Council

Here are the Recall City Hall campaign finance reports, also on the City page:

Campaign Reports – Recall City Hall

Ask the candidates about their reporting! Let them know what you think!

In-person meeting tonight — MASK UP!

READ THE DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT AND REGISTER YOUR THOUGHTS!

Xcel still has not disclosed what cask they plan to use. They also have said they don’t need a NRC license amendment, but the Xcel testimony in the rate case says otherwise. See p. 56-58:

Be there, or be square!

Dept. of Commerce – EERA announces release of the Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for Xcel’s proposal to change storage casks (to what? Who knows, Xcel ain’t sayin’), and two meetings for comment.

In person meeting? MASK UP!!!

And here’s the SEIS:

Here’s the poop on comments:

Get to work, the SEIS is 132 pages, but in format-lite!

FYI, Xcel’s “plan” is linked here:

Change in Prairie Island nuclear casks?

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.