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.

RE:

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:

• Bills Chief Authored
• Co-Authored

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.

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