It all started with the City Council’s appointments to the Charter Commission, and the process leading up to it. Charter Commission appointments are divided, some appointed by Council, some appointed by Charter Commission. I’m on the Charter Commission, which voted to reappoint me at the April Charter Commission meeting. There were also four Council appointments made on April 24, 2023 meeting.

Check the April 24, 2023 City Council meeting, starting at ~53:53:

https://redwingmn.portal.civicclerk.com/event/21/media

After the appointments, they’re sent to the District Court for judicial approval. Instead, we got this letter back, staying confirmation of all appointments, something I’ve not seen before! Here’s her letter:

On seeing that Letter and the attachments, oh my:

Legalectric post: Der Kommissar’s in Town!

In that letter were two letters expressing concern about, and wishing to block, appointments of Tom Drazkowski, Jason Snyder, and MOI, to the Charter Commission. One was from Rev. Dr. Eick had been at the meeting, and was disturbed by what he saw at the meeting, in particular the odd process, in voting in Tom Drazkowski and Jason Snyder, particularly as they’d both been found to have violated campaign finance law in the November 8, 2022 campaign cycle, and they were fined. See Eick letter, p. 3-4 and Order of OAH re: Campaign Finance at 5-14.

The other was Mayor Wilson’s letter, “As Red Wing’s Mayor,” to block my reappointment to the Charter Commission:

Really… he said that and more. See Wilson’s letter starting at page 15, and the attachments, through page 21, jawdroppingly absurd. When I read the part about “Commissar,” the old Falco “Der Kommissar” tune started on the tape loop, and I couldn’t help but SNORT! Then a native German filled me in, Der Kommissar was a popular German TV show ages ago, and Der Kommissar was a brilliant and most successful homicide detective.

I’ll regard Wilson’s labeling as a compliment, although for sure it was not meant as such.

In her letter, Judge Lennon requested the following:

And here are the responses to the judge, provided after I sent a Data Practices Act Request to the city. See above link for City Council meeting of April 24, 2023:

City Council explanation of process:

From Jason Snyder:

From Tom Drazkowski:

And from moi, Carol A. Overland:

And again, read this letter Wilson sent “As Red Wing’s Mayor” directly to the judge AFTER the Charter Commission had voted to reappoint me. The Charter Commission welcomes public comment, it’s on the agenda. Did Wilson show up and make a public comment prior to our vote? NO! The Charter Commission accepts written public comment. Did Wilson write a comment to the Charter Commission prior to our vote? NO! Instead, he sent an ex parte letter directly to the judge after the Charter Commission voted to reappoint me to the Commission. He did not serve the letter on me or the Charter Commission or the City. Transparency much? Once more with feeling, check out this letter below, and here’s the link, as above, see pages 14-21:

And this… he attached this to a letter to a judge?!?!?! As proof of ???

Suffice it to say we need a new Mayor, one who understands the role as the public face of our city, and specifically that it is not to be used to attempt to control public opinion or its expression. Again, from the City Charter:

What’s next? Judge Lennon will post an Order sometime, I hope soon. Maybe the judge will order a hearing!

UPDATE: BACK TO 5 BARS OF SIGNAL! YES!!

There’s a water tower full of antennae at the top of our West bluff. Does the bluff have a name?

Yesterday, I checked with T-Mobile about the non-existent signal and dropping of calls. T-Mobile said then that for two days, there’s been no power to their antennae and they’re waiting for Xcel Energy to connect it! Today, I checked again, and there still is no power to the antenna.

Nothing shows in the Xcel outage map!

This affects thousands. GET WITH IT, XCEL!

To report outage to Xcel Energy: 800-895-4999

POWER THE TOWER!

In Massachusetts, a case has come down supporting a person’s right to be rude in seeking redress from government:

Keep in mind this is Massachusetts, but we had something similar in Minnesota, after Robin Hensel was hauled out of a Little Falls City Council meeting, and she took it up to the Minnesota Supreme Court:

This Minnesota opinion so concerned Red Wing’s former police chief Pohlman that he initiated Ordinance 115, designed to give police additional power to remove people from City Council meetings, even after consulting with the County Attorney (hmmmm, why?) who said it was not necessary, not needed. What was Pohlman trying to do? Why? What was he afraid of?

Red Wing’s Ordinance #115 – Why?

Here’s the letter I’d written then:

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

Last night’s Red Wing City Council meeting (here on youtube, (Agenda Item 10C starts ~2:22) was a display of Council President Biese, Council members Kliewer and Farrar, and Mayor Wilson’s inability to “read the room” in putting forth a proposal to eliminate public comment for those participating virtually, people like MOI who often comment and show up virtually, and to make the “Statement of Intent” optional.

In the bEagle:

Virtual public comment discussion divided council

What these folks did was meet in secret, a meeting with no notice, not public, and developed Resolution 7852. They tried to claim that it was an Agenda Committee meeting, FALSE! It was NOT an Agenda meeting. Thankfully Kay Kuhlman, Council Admin, did correct that false statement for the record, noting it was separate from the properly noticed “Agenda Committee” meeting, it was NOT an “Agenda Committee” meeting. GOOD, except Kuhlman DID participate in that private, secret, meeting. And nevermind that the purpose of an “Agenda Meeting” is to set the agenda, not to go over Council Rules & Procedures and rewrite them!

Here’s the “Statement of Intent” that they want to make optional:

Apparently some have a problem with, and do not “agree to treat everyone with courtesy, dignity, and respect.” And that they “will listen to all sides of an issue, encourage participation…” yeah, obviously some have a problem with that…

Big thanks to, in order of appearance, Patricia Allende De Jung, Martha Harris, Alan Muller, Terri Cook, and MOI, who spoke against adoption of these changes.

CLICK HERE FOR LINK, Agenda Item 10C begins at ~2:23. Oh, great… the video is screwed up on the City’s page. Until then, this youtube.