Legalectric

After wading through the bullshit last night, it feels a lot better this morning in Red Wing. Watch the video, particularly Agenda Items 7, 10C, and 10D:

Red Wing City Council Meeting – June 14, 2021

In order of appearance:

• Agenda Item 7 – Terri Cook appointed to Charter Commission, no discussion, no muss, no fuss.
• Agenda Item 10C – Recall – Brown and Buss – once again, no malfeasance or non-feasance. DOH!
• Agenda Item 10D – Shared space – Mayor Wilson does not have exclusive rights to the shared space at City Hall.

There was a call to SHOW UP and support the Council, that’s the folks in white shirts, who far outnumbered the “RECALL” folks, about the same percentages as in the Presidential votes in our fair city. Overflow crowd.

In the Republican bEagle:

4 things to know about the Red Wing City Council meeting

In the Rochester Post Bulletin:

Recall committee loses another round at Red Wing city council meeting

Last night, the Red Wing City Council had just one substantive item on the agenda, a request for vacation of an easement from Tom and Anne Wilder. The land in question is that graveled area with driveway and car on it, and a wider section on the parcel to the north, also owned by the Wilders:

It looks like the City did not provide mailed notice to landowners owning property within 500 feet of the Wilders’ property! In particular, I’m looking at the landowners with contiguous parcels, those at 1231 – 5th St. W and 1268 – 6th St. W. They have smaller homes and lots, valued lower, and they just might appreciate the opportunity to add that land to their parcels.

Vacation of an easement is one of those things, like “cartway” that in law school was a big snooze. Yet it’s something to consider. Back on 2019, we got notice about vacation of the easement adjacent to Daniel Sturgeon’s property here on West. I was not pleased about this when he had bought a lot for, according to the County GIS site, “under $1,000” and that he was now asking the City to give him more land. We got a notice in the mail and so I looked into it then, and spoke against it at the public hearing.

After Sturgeon got the land, he turned around and put it on the market for many, many times what he paid:

He’s had some reality orientation since and the price is now at $25,900, still many times more than what was paid:

Anyway, the Notice for the Wilders’ easement vacation request was very different from that for the Sturgeon easement vacation request. Note the “NOTE” at the bottom:

At last night’s meeting, Jay Owens stated that Notice was published in the Eagle, but that was all, and he expressly stated that there had been no contact with the adjacent landowners, in particular, the ones on the other side of the easement.

The Charter has this notice requirement — publication, but no mailing of notice requirement in the Charter:

The timing of the Wilders’ request is odd, as they asked for the city to give them this land some time in March, based on the dates in the packet:

Agenda Item 10A – City Council Packet – 5-10-2021

The hearing was scheduled by the City Council at the April 12, 2021 meeting (9P – Attachment).

As you may recall, Anne Wilder drew this RECALL CITY HALL “cartoon” that was published by the Red Wing Republican Eagle — it was published days after scheduling of the hearing was placed on the Council agenda at the “Agenda Committee” meeting:

• I used to trust their judgment… Now I’m not so sure! What will they do next?
• I worry that this is just the beginning… Are we inviting big problems to our community?
• Great job City Council. My once-peaceful neighborhood just started FIGHTING over your decision to fire the Police Chief.
• This is the kind of thing that makes people move away…
• Shouldn’t a City Council always work to build a stronger, safer & better community instead of TEARING IT APART???

Just wow…

Here’s Tom Wilder right at the top of the initial Andy Klitzke – Ward 2 RECALL CITY HALL petition:

To ask for this easement vacation from the City while at the same time principals in the “RECALL CITY HALL” effort is, well, tone deaf, ballsy, to put it mildly.

My Letter to the Editor about this:

My question to the Wilders… shouldn’t this easement vacation wait until there’s a City Council you trust? Asking for a handout now (for the nominal fee of $425) seems a bit much given you want to “RECALL CITY HALL.“

It’s a RECALL TO NOWHERE!

From the City: YOU ASK, WE ANSWER — What’s a Recall?

They’re out today, trying to gather signatures, handing out the above flyers. Earlier this week there was a long advertisement for the recall effort:

Red Wing recall movement hits the streets for signatures

Residents point to firing of Roger Pohlman along with open meeting violation as reason for signing petitions.

And some great Letters to the Editor in today’s bEagle – click for larger version:

“Pathetic malcontents” pretty much says it all.

My $0.02:

Note that the recall petitions they’re trotting around only complain of open meeting law violations (click for larger version):

When they say “by voting unlawfully to deny an open City Council session for consideration disciplinary action against Chief Roger Pohlman, thus infringing upon the rights of the public…” it seems to me that what they wanted was a open IN PERSON meeting at City Hall, so they could storm City Hall!

Pohlman had a “name clearing” hearing, and here’s what it looked like outside City Hall — is there anyone under 50 in this sparse under-50 group:

These are the initial flyers about the recall:

And then there’s the ~250 “Petition” that had typed names, no signatures, people living outside of Red Wing and even in Wisconsin!! Several have complained that their name was used improperly.

And some more primary documentation — the initial campaign report with significant LARGE anonymous donations:

Here are the reports, initial and “amended.” SNORT!

VIDEO OF CHARTER COMMISSION MEETING

Agenda with links to attachments

A background Legalectric post:

“Recall” on Charter Commission agenda?!?

So I sent this missive to all, being oh-so-transparent with the ask and intent:

I then sent background info to support the request for recusal of Kent Laugen, Ernie Stone, and Shelley Pohlman, which was added to the agenda #11 documents. These primary documents are the Recall petition with Stone, Laugen (and Rehder) named; the Campaign Financial Report and Amended Report with contributions from Stone and Pohlman; a “Recall City Hall” flyer posted on Pohlman’s Red Wing Minnesota News page; and Post Bulletin article with quotes from Recall principals Ernie Stone and Kent Laugen:

Attachment – Email from C. Overland

I was told, “we will not be adding your requested item to the agenda as your concerns could be brought up under item 11.” You can see how that went.

No problem, if that’s what it takes to get it off the agenda, well, that’s what it takes.

Ultimately, yes, it was tabled. Good. However, the conflict issue was not addressed, and it should be if there are items relating to “recall” on the agenda. Note also that the changes to Charter 5.17 were not “technical changes” to align with the statute, but were substantive changes eliminating the run-off provision, something which needs to be discussed.

And did I mention that Ernie Stone said he’d talked to the City Attorney about me and my questioning of Shelley Pohlman at the last meeting? Wish I were a fly on that wall! Guess he doesn’t think I should challenge her false statements, documented, on refugee resettlement, and her claims of “conflict of interest” of County Commissioner Flanders. Oh well. Those false statements and pot-stirring continue with the recall effort.

Three new Charter Commission members were approved. In the section in the beginning where Peggy Rehder had applied, and was approved, there’s material background that was ignored. Rehder was voted in despite the 2018 formal complaint against her when she was on the City Council, the investigation, which resulted in the Council’s resolution that she participate in mediation with Marshall Hallock, and a firm directive that her out-of-bounds behavior not occur again. She resigned prior to mediation even being scheduled. What has changed to address these behavioral issues? That was not answered.

Watch the 4/23/2018 City Council video of Council deliberation and decision.

Something this serious should be addressed. It wasn’t. Instead, discussion was blocked, putting blinders on to a demonstrated problem.

In discussion of the other two applicants, Shelley Pohlman (a/k/a/ Rena Marsh) demanded to know if the names were their legal names! Shelley then wanted to know of Bjornstad was a member of League of Women Voters or AAUW! (I am not now nor have I ever been a member of…) Bjornstad noted that she was too young, maybe in a few years (SNORT!), but that she was a 5th grade civics teacher for a few years. Kent Laugen was wanting to know if they would be loyal to the Charter Commission, not the City Council, which was weird, questioning their integrity and ethics. Shelley questioned Greg Bolt about his “conflict of interest” because he is a pastor and the Council President is a parishioner, and his role in her election (he marched in a parade with a sign and something else inconsequential). Three people voted against Bolt!

Also, there was discussion of a comment made at the last meeting by Alan Muller, who thought there should be a requirement that committees of the Council be subject to the same charter provisions as the Council, and they asked about that, he was there at the meeting, raised his hand electronically, was ignored, I noted he was there, but they did not acknowledge him to address their questions to him directly. That was weird.

The rest of the meeting was a typical Charter Commission meeting…

Oh, and there is also supposed to be a public comment period at the beginning of each meeting which was not there this time, and I’ve requested that this be in the boilerplate agenda.

There’s a Charter Commission meeting next week – TUNE IN on Channel 6:

Red Wing Charter Commission

Mar 31, 2021 – 06:00 PM

Agenda

And look what’s on the agenda (click for larger version):

Here’s what’s at issue:

BFD? Well, not really, because there are at least three people on the Charter Commission who are championing the “Recall City Hall” effort.

So I sent this missive out as notice and request that I want to add an agenda item to the “Approve Agenda” section:

To which Shelley Pohlman, Queen of Conflict of Interest in this recall matter, replied, 7 minutes later:

“This an open meeting violation.”

It’s pretty basic — can’t have people involved in an active (though likely doomed) recall effort voting on changes to the Charter regarding recall!!

Active recall… yeah, it’s a stretch, because there’s a high bar for a recall petition, and after that, a high bar in the number of signatures required:

There’s roughly 2,500 registered voters per ward, twice that where two wards are combined, and roughly 10,000 registered voters for the “at large” Council seat…

Let’s do the math… if they want to recall all but Beise.. SNORT! How many registered voters in that councilor’s ward(s) are needed?

• Hove – Wards 1 & 2 = 5,249, 20% = 1,049
• Klitzke – Ward 2 = 2,575, 20% = 515
• Norton – Ward 3 = 2,617, 20% – 523
• Buss – Ward 4 = 2,424, 20% = 484
• Brown – Wards 3 & 4, 20% = 5,041
• Stinson – At Large – All Wards 9,905, 20% = 1,981

I can’t see them gathering 500, 1,000 or 2,000 voters’ signatures, but there it is, they can do it, it’s clearly allowed in the City Charter, and they’re at least being press hounds, though no evidence of a Petition yet, so get your popcorn and have a seat…

They’ve formed a “Committee to Recall City Hall” and here’s their first report:

Note the large anonymous donations?

Anonymous donations – NOT OK!! The rules clearly state that:

It’s stated pretty clearly… “This itemization must include name, address, employer or occupation if self-employed, amount and date for these contributions.”

Nope, folks active in a recall effort shouldn’t be participating in discussion or voting on Charter Commission recall provision language change.

And then there’s the recall effort itself — folks not wanting to accept that they lost by an “overwhelming majority” vote of 6-1 to fire Roger Pohlman. Just no, what a waste of time, effort, and money. Lots of distractivism, pot-, and outright lies. Lies? Yes, look at this and note the misstated order of things:

Here’s a link to the Pohlman support “petition.”

Above, from Shelley Pohlman’s “Red Wing Minnesota News” page, she states, “In response, citizens presented the counsel with a petition with more than 250 names…” “In response” isn’t true. The properties in the WORD version presented to the City show that the “Petition” was begun on February 17, and last saved and given to the City on February 19, BEFORE he was fired, yet the Petition was demanding Pohlman be “reinstated immediately.” The petition was not delivered to the City “in response” as stated above. Why the misrepresentation? Ummmm… yes, really, BEFORE he was fired. What information were they acting on when they put this “Petition” together and solicited names? Who was soliciting “signers” for this “Petition” before he was fired? What information were those ~250 people who “signed” given? Were they told that Pohlman was applying to be Chief in Lakefield, MN?

Potential for Pohlman to be fired? He knew there were issues, issues that had been raised before. Here are two documents from his 2020 evaluation, retrieved with a Data Practices Act Request to City:

And the termination letter:

Looks to me like ~250 people were played. Pohlman knew this was coming. Someone(s) struck up the band, got the bandwagon rolling, folks jumped on, and they didn’t have the full story. Over and over, as above, they’re continuing to parrot lines that Pohlman wasn’t given time to speak? The potential of firing was not new to Pohlman, and he was represented by counsel, wasn’t he?

Saying that “taxpaying Red Wing citizens were shut out of the meeting” is bizarre. What does that mean, shut out? Employee matters are confidential, is that CONFIDENTIAL closed session what they wanted “open” contrary to state law? Is it that they didn’t attend the open zoom meeting where the Council acted? I’ve heard that some wanted an “OPEN UP” meeting, and IN PERSON meeting, at City Hall where the doors were open and people could attend in person, and that this was denied. Is this what they’re referring to? Let’s get this clarified!

Ya say ya wanna do a recall, and I say, “NO NO NO!” There’s no legal basis for a recall. This is a PR push, and a sham. Just because you can do something doesn’t mean you should.