Facts and Procedural History:
On February 4, 2003, IPAD received a letter, dated February 3, 2003, from Gloria Hartmann. In her letter, Ms. Hartmann asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding a response from Independent School District 146, Barnesville, concerning her request for information. Following discussion with IPAD staff, Ms. Hartmann clarified her request and submitted another letter dated February 3, 2003, which IPAD received on February 6, 2003.
IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Todd Cameron, whom IPAD believed to be the Superintendent of the District, in response to Ms. Hartmann's request. (The Commissioner subsequently learned that Warren Schmidt is the District's interim superintendent.) The purposes of this letter, dated February 7, 2003, were to inform him of Ms. Hartmann's request and to ask him to provide information or support for the District's position. On February 26, 2003, IPAD received a response from Patricia Maloney, an attorney representing the District.
A summary of the facts as Ms. Hartmann provided them is as follows. Apparently, the District's Board of Education closed a portion of its August 19, 2002, meeting and identified it on the agenda as a meet and confer session. It later was determined that the closed session was, in fact, a personnel review and performance evaluation of the Superintendent, as the Chair apparently stated before entering into the closed session.
According to an email Ms. Hartmann sent to a Board member, the Board member, after the meeting, read a motion stating the reason for not renewing the Superintendent's contract. The reason was a desire for new leadership.
In her opinion request, Ms. Hartmann wrote, The statement addresses the reason for non-renewal of the contract. I do not feel that it meets the requirements of Minnesota Statute 13D.05 subd 3(b) ...
Ms. Hartmann further stated:
Previous opinions of the Commissioner indicate that the governing body ought to summarize each salient point of the evaluation so that they [sic] public is given the opportunity to get the best possible sense of the performance - good, bad or indifferent - of the public employee. I do not feel the board has done that.
I have made several attempts to obtain the information from the School Board. The most recent response from the Board chairwoman, dated October 24, 2002 was Your inquiry has been taken under advisement and a response will be forthcoming. No response has been forthcoming.
Issue:
In her request for an opinion, Ms. Hartmann asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
-
| Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapters 13 and 13D, did Independent School District 146, Barnesville, respond appropriately to a request for the summary of its conclusions regarding the performance evaluation of the District superintendent? |
Discussion:
The Barnesville Board of Education is subject to the requirements of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13D, the Open Meeting Law. Generally, all meetings must be open to the public; however, there are certain situations in which a public body either may or must close a meeting. One such situation is when a public body is considering, preliminarily, allegations or charges against an individual subject to its authority. (See section 13D.05, subdivision 2(b).) Another is when a public body is evaluating the performance of an individual subject to its authority. (See section 13D.05, subdivision 3(a).)
In her comments to the Commissioner, Ms. Maloney provided background on the August 19, 2002, meeting. She wrote:
At the request of the former Superintendent Todd Cameron and his legal counsel, the [Board] met in a closed session on August 19, 2002, to evaluate Mr. Cameron's performance. At prior meetings the [Board] has passed resolutions resulting in the nonrenewal of Superintendent Cameron's employment contract effective June 30, 2003. Superintendent Cameron was concerned that members of the community inferred that the Board's decision to not renew his contract was based on misconduct or inappropriate behavior. He wanted the Board to take some action that would result in quelling these rumors and clearing his name and professional reputation. Prior to the meeting, Superintendent Cameron's attorney had drafted two resolutions for the School Board's consideration and approval. The first proposed resolution declared that the decision to not renew Superintendent's contract was not based in any way on any alleged misconduct or inappropriate behavior or upon any disciplinary investigation of Superintendent Cameron and the Board did not know of any such allegations which would warrant investigation. The second proposed resolution simply thanked Superintendent Cameron for his services to the [District] and wished him well in his future endeavors.
Ms. Maloney further stated:
The School Board met in closed session on August 19, 2002, to evaluate Superintendent Cameron's performance for the sole purpose of determining whether he had been guilty of any misconduct or inappropriate behavior or whether there were any allegations which would warrant a disciplinary investigation. After conducting the evaluation, the School Board returned to open session and adopted the following motion to summarize the results of the motion:
The initial and any final decision to not renew Superintendent Cameron's contract was based solely on the desire by a majority of the School Board for a new leadership and administration and not based in any way on any alleged misconduct or inappropriate behavior or upon any disciplinary investigation of Superintendent Cameron and the Board does not know of any such allegations which would warrant an investigation.
...
In this case, the Barnesville School Board approached the evaluation with a very narrow focus. Superintendent Cameron's employment contract had already been non-renewed so there was no need or reason to conduct an overall evaluation of his performance. Rather, the evaluation was limited to reviewing whether or not Superintendent Cameron had been guilty of misconduct or inappropriate behavior or whether any of the Board members knew of any allegations that would warrant a disciplinary investigation. The Board met and evaluated Superintendent Cameron solely on these points. Upon returning to open session the Board adopted the resolution cited above. Since the motion summarized each salient point of the evaluation, the School Board's summary complied with the Open Meeting Law.
The Commissioner has the following comments. First, pursuant to section 13D.01, subdivision 3, before closing a meeting, a public body shall state on the record the specific grounds permitting the meeting to be closed and describe the subject to be discussed. According to an email between the then-Board Chair and Mr. Cameron (Ms. Hartmann provided a copy of this email to the Commissioner), the closed session was identified on the agenda as a meet and confer, but later was determined to be a personnel review and performance evaluation. The Commissioner notes that public bodies do not have authority to close public meetings to meet and confer, except to the extent that a meet and confer is a labor negotiation pursuant to section 13D.03.
Second, upon reviewing all the facts, the Commissioner is not at all convinced the Board had authority to close the meeting. It does not appear the purpose was to consider, preliminarily, allegations or charges against Mr. Cameron, nor does it appear the Board was conducting a performance evaluation. Rather, the meeting was closed at the request of Mr. Cameron's attorney for the purpose of clearing his [Mr. Cameron's] name and professional reputation. Chapter 13D sets forth the specific situations in which a public body may or must close a meeting. If none of the those applied to the situation on August 19, 2002, the Board should not have closed the meeting. The Commissioner, therefore, finds it inappropriate to comment on the issue Ms. Hartmann originally posed because the Board's comments are not a summary of its conclusions regarding Mr. Cameron's performance evaluation.
A final note is appropriate. Possibly, part of the reason Mr. Cameron and his attorney requested the two resolutions is the result of action taken at a May 2002 meeting of the Board. At that meeting, part of which was closed to evaluate then-Superintendent Cameron's performance, the Board summarized the conclusions of the evaluation in this way: At the May 6, 2002 meeting, Supt. Cameron's annual evaluation was reviewed. Chair Szweduik disclosed the results of the evaluation to state that areas of growth were identified and Supt. Cameron's evaluation is an ongoing process. The Commissioner is aware of these facts because he issued an advisory opinion on the matter, opining that the Board's statement, as reflected in the meeting minutes, did not constitute a summary as required per 13D.05, subdivision 3(a). (See Advisory Opinion 02-035.) Apparently, at a meeting held on February 18, 2003, the Board adopted a motion containing a more detailed summary of Superintendent Cameron's May 2002 performance evaluation. (Ms. Maloney provided this information to the Commissioner as part of her comments regarding the opinion at hand.) The point here is that if the Board initially had provided the public with an adequate summary of the Superintendent's performance evaluation, the Board's reasons for not renewing his contract would have been clear, and further Board action to quell rumors in the community might not have been necessary.
Opinion:
Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue that Ms. Hartmann raised is as follows:
| Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13D, it does not appear Independent School District 146, Barnesville, had authority to close part of its Board meeting on August 19, 2002. Therefore, the statement that the Board released is not a summary of its conclusions regarding the performance evaluation of the District superintendent. |
Signed:
Brian J. Lamb
Commissioner
Dated: March 12, 2003
|
