Facts and Procedural History:

In a letter dated October 13, 1994, and received by PIPA on October 14, 1994, Mr. Mark R. Anfinson, attorney for the Pioneer, a newspaper published in Bemidji, Minnesota described an attempt by a reporter for his client to gain access to certain data maintained by Beltrami County, hereinafter County. After providing detail about the reporter's request for data held by the County, Mr. Anfinson asked that the Commissioner issue an opinion on the issue stated in the Issue section below.

A summary of the detailed information provided by Mr. Anfinson is as follows. On or about October 6, 1994, the County issued a press release that announced that a former county juvenile probation officer had settled a discrimination case filed against the County with the Minnesota Department of Human Rights. The press release contained some details about the terms of the settlement. However, the amount of money to be paid to the former employee and other details of the settlement agreement were not disclosed. When a reporter asked detailed questions about the settlement, the County responded that the agreement contained a confidentiality clause and that neither details about the agreement nor a copy of the agreement itself would be provided to the public.

In response to Mr. Anfinson's request, PIPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Ms. Christine Patten, the County Auditor, and Mr. Tim Faver, the County Attorney. The purposes of this letter, dated October 18, 1994, were to inform the County of Mr. Anfinson's request, to provide a copy of the request to the County, to ask the County or its attorney to provide information or support for the County's position and to inform the County of the date by which the Commissioner was required to issue this opinion. No response was received from the County.

Issue:

Discussion:

In light of that policy, it is clear that a government entity in this state cannot enter into an agreement to make certain government data not public when the statutory treatment of the data, either specifically or by operation of Section 13.03, subdivision 1 of the Act, classifies the data in question as public. Under well-settled principles of contract law, an agreement to treat certain public data as not public would be void at its inception because it violates the public policy stated in Section 13.03, subdivision 1. (See Northern Pacific Railway, Co. v. Thornton Bros., Co., 228 N.W. 226, 227 (Minn. 1939.) If the County, its former employee and its insurer have entered into a covenant in a settlement agreement to keep the complete agreement not public, this covenant is not enforceable and it therefore cannot be used as a basis for denying public access to the settlement agreement.

In addition to the general presumption that all government data are public, the legislature, in the particular instance of settlement agreements involving current and former employees, has specifically and very clearly classified settlement agreements as public data. Minnesota Statutes Section 13.43, subdivision 2, the provision in the Act that details what data about current or former public employees are public, includes the following in its list of public data: the terms of any agreement settling any dispute arising out of the employment relationship. Accepting as correct Mr. Anfinson's discussion of the situation that gave rise to the County entering into this agreement, it appears clear that it is an agreement settling a dispute arising out of the employment relationship. The terms of all such agreements are explicitly made public by Section 13.43, subdivision 2, of the Act and the County should provide the public with access to this agreement including, if requested, copies of the agreement.

Opinion: