| Did the City of Saint Paul comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in responding to a request for certain data about a former City employee? |
Discussion:
Government data about current and former employees are classified at Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43. In a situation where someone has complained about an employee, the following data are public pursuant to section 13.43, subdivision 2(a)(4): the existence and status of the complaint or charge. If the government entity has taken disciplinary action and a final disposition has occurred, the following data are public pursuant to section 13.43, subdivision 2(a)(5): the final disposition of any disciplinary action together with the specific reasons for the action and data documenting the basis for the action.
Also, section 13.43, subdivision 2(e), states:
... upon completion of an investigation of a complaint or charge against a public official, or if a public official resigns or is terminated from employment while the complaint or charge is pending, all data relating to the complaint or charge are public, unless access to the data would jeopardize an active investigation or reveal confidential sources. For purposes of this paragraph, public official means:
1) the head of a state agency and deputy and assistant state agency heads;
2) members of boards or commissions required by law to be appointed by the governor or other elected officers; and
3) executive or administrative heads of departments, bureaus, divisions, or institutions.
In his opinion request, Mr. Nelson argued that the City did not release as much information as is required. He relied upon an unpublished United States District Court, District of Minnesota case, Burns v. City of Minneapolis, U.S. District Court, District of Minnesota (Civil No. 00-577, 2001), and argued that (1) the City should have detailed the nature of the allegations against Ms. LaForce, and (2) the City should have released all data relating to the complaint because Ms. LaForce was a public official as that term is defined in section 13.43.
Regarding whether the City was required to release details about the nature of the allegations, Ms. Langfield wrote:
... Mr. Nelson's reliance upon Burns is misplaced. First, in Burns the court has confused when reasons should be provided. According to statute, specific reasons for disciplinary action are to be provided if and only when there is a final disposition of disciplinary action...
Ms. Langfield also cited a Minnesota Supreme Court case, Navarre v. South Washington County Schools, 652 N.W.2d 9 (Minn. 2002), which was issued after the Burns decision. In Navarre, the Court held:
... a government entity's public comments before final disposition of any disciplinary action are limited to the possible existence of a complaint or complaints or charges against the government employee. Any disclosure by the government entity during the investigation that describes any quality or characteristic of the complaint, whether general or specific, goes beyond the mere existence of the complaint, and therefore violates section 13.43, subdivision 2(a)(4). Navarre at 22-23.
The Commissioner agrees with the City's position and finds the analysis in Burns distinguishable from the current situation. In Burns, the Court appears to suggest that statements appearing in two newspaper articles that were attributed to the City of Minneapolis did not directly connect the police officers under investigation with the fact that Minneapolis was investigating the mounted patrol's finances. The Court wrote:
The December 5, 1997 newspaper article reported the existence and status of an investigation into the mounted patrol's financial management... That specific reasons and data documenting the basis for an investigation cannot be released to the public until after a final disposition does not mean the public may be informed of no reasons at all for the investigation... .No reasonable reading of the articles could indicate that the City improperly released personnel data on [one of the defendants]. Emphasis provided. Burns, slip opinion at 16.
The Court also stated, Defamatory meaning attributable to Defendants cannot be found on the face of this [newspaper article]. Nor can defamatory meaning be drawn from Olson's remarks by implication. Burns, slip opinion at 8.
Here, the facts are clear that Mr. Nelson asked for data about Ms. LaForce. There is no question that she is the subject of any data the City releases in response. In such situations, the Commissioner consistently has opined that details about a complaint or charge cannot be released until there has been a final disposition of the matter. In Advisory Opinion 94-042, the Commissioner wrote:
... The current language of [section 13.43] section declares a legislative policy that balances two strongly competing interests. The public has an important interest in knowing how government entities are handling and have handled complaints and charges that are made against public employees. On the other hand, public employees have strong reputational and other interests in not having unsubstantiated and potentially false complaints or charges made against them disclosed to the public. The legislature has achieved that balance by saying that certain data about complaints or charges against public employees will always be public but certain other data, and particular details concerning a given complaint or charge against a public employee, will not become public unless and until there is a final disposition of a disciplinary action against the employee.
In this particular balancing of interests, the public is able to find out that charges or complaints have been made against an employee and how the government entity is handling those complaints or charges. If a final disciplinary action is imposed on the employee, the public will also be able to learn the details of the action itself and why the action was taken, including all data that supports the action. If no disciplinary action is imposed or if a proposed disciplinary action is overturned because the employee grieved a proposed disciplinary action under a collective bargaining agreement, the employee's interest is protected because there is very limited dissemination to the public of any details about the allegations.
Further, in Advisory Opinion 04-047, the Commissioner wrote:
The Commissioner has the following comments. At the point in time Chief Johnson stated that X had been suspended, a final disposition had not occurred. Thus, pursuant to section 13.43, subdivision 2(a)(4), data relating to the existence and status of the complaint/charge were public, but data relating to any disciplinary action taken against X were not public.
Although the word status is not defined in section 13.43, or elsewhere in Chapter 13, the Minnesota Supreme Court used the following definition in a recent case: [a] stage of progress or development. (See Navarre v. South Washington County Schools, 652 N.W.2d, 9, 22 (Minn . 2002) (footnote 4).) In Navarre, the Court cited The American Heritage Dictionary College Edition, 1309 (2d ed. 1982). Thus, the status of a complaint against an employee means whether the complaint has been filed, is under investigation, is closed, no discipline was imposed, or similar descriptions of the stages in an entity's investigatory process. By releasing only data explaining the status of a complaint/charge in response to a data request, the government entity is able to inform the public what it is doing or has done in response to a complaint while simultaneously protecting the rights of employees who are the subjects of the complaint.
Regarding whether Ms. LaForce was a public official for purposes of section 13.43, subdivision 2(e), and, therefore, that all data regarding the complaint are public, Ms. Langfield cited Advisory Opinion 01-083, in which the Commissioner wrote:
The Legislature originally enacted part of [section 13.43, subdivision 2(e)] in 1995. At that time, the definition of public official was the head of a state agency and deputy and assistant agency heads. (See Minnesota Laws 1995, Chapter 259, Article 1, Section 7).
In 1996, the Legislature amended the provision by adding the language in clauses (2) and (3). (See Minnesota Laws 1996, Chapter 440, Article 1, Section 10.)
IPA staff attended and testified at the Legislative hearings in 1995 and 1996 during which discussions about section 13.43, subdivision 2(e) occurred. There is no question that this provision applies only to state agencies, which are defined at section 13.02, subdivision 17, as the state, the University of Minnesota, and any office, officer, department, division, bureau, board, commission, authority, district or agency of the state. The Legislature considered including local levels of government but did not do so.
Therefore, for purposes of classifying data under section 13.43, subdivision 2(e), the Clay County Sheriff is not a public official.
Ascertaining legislative intent is one way to interpret laws. Minnesota Statutes, section 645.16, states, The object of all interpretation and construction of laws is to ascertain and effectuate the intention of the legislature. Here, the legislative history, as discussed in 01-083, indicates that the provisions of section 13.43, subdivision 2(e), do not cover Ms. LaForce, contrary to the decision in Burns. The Commissioner follows the legislative intent and concludes that the City was not required to release all data relating to the complaint or charge.
Opinion:
Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue that Mr. Nelson raised is as follows:
| The City of Saint Paul did comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in responding to a request for certain data about a former City employee. |
Signed:
Dana B. Badgerow
Commissioner
Dated: May 11, 2005
