June 30, 1999; School District 15 (St. Francis)
6/30/1999 10:14:43 AM
This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
Facts and Procedural History:For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of IPA and, except for any data classified as not public, are available for public access. On May 11, 1999, IPA received a letter from Mark Anfinson, an attorney, on behalf of his client, the Anoka County Union, a newspaper. In his letter, Mr. Anfinson asked the Commissioner to issue an opinion regarding the response to a request for access to data that the Union received from Independent School District 15, St. Francis. Mr. Anfinson enclosed a copy of the minutes from a District School Board meeting. In response to Mr. Anfinson's request, IPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to James L. Smith, Superintendent of the District. The purposes of this letter, dated May 12, 1999, were to inform him of Mr. Anfinson's request, and to ask him to provide information or support for the District's position. On May 19, 1999, IPA received a response from Paul C. Ratwick, attorney for the District. A summary of the detailed facts of this matter follows. On March 1, 1999, the District School Board held a closed meeting for the purpose of evaluating the performance of the District superintendent. According to Mr. Anfinson, [a]t the conclusion of the closed meeting, the chair of the school board, Kim Hirsch, stated simply that the board discussed the strengths and weaknesses of the superintendent.' The minutes of the Board meeting contain the same statement. The Board did not provide any further details about the performance evaluation. According to Mr. Anfinson, [a Union reporter] challenged this statement on the grounds that it did not comply with the requirements of the Minnesota Open Meeting Law, Minn. Stat. section 471.705, subd. 1d(d). . . . In response to the Union's request, Ms. Hirsch stated that the District's attorney had advised her that the statement read into the minutes fulfilled the requirements of the Open Meeting Law, and that she could say no more because it would violate data privacy.' In his response to the Commissioner, Mr. Ratwick stated that the School Board could not have released additional information, pursuant to section 13.43. Mr. Ratwick cited Minnesota case law in support of the District's position that no additional information could be made public. Issue:In his request for an opinion, Mr. Anfinson asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
Discussion:Certain data about public employees are classified as public, and all other personnel data are private, pursuant to section 13.43, subdivisions 2 and 4. Data relating to the performance evaluation of a public employee are private data. However, pursuant to section 471.705, subdivision 1d(d): A public body may close a meeting to evaluate the performance of an individual who is subject to its authority. The public body shall identify the individual to be evaluated prior to closing a meeting. At its next open meeting, the public body shall summarize its conclusions regarding the evaluation. A meeting must be open at the request of the individual who is the subject of the meeting. [Emphasis added.] Section 471.705, subdivision 1d(a) provides, in relevant part: Data that are not public data may be discussed at a meeting subject to this section without liability or penalty, if the disclosure relates to a matter within the scope of the public body's authority and is reasonably necessary to conduct the business or agenda item before the public body. Data discussed at an open meeting retain the data's original classification; however, a record of the meeting, regardless of form, shall be public. Mr. Anfinson stated that the above-cited provisions of section 471.705, subdivision 1d, explicitly provide for the disclosure of a summary of the evaluation data discussed at a meeting closed to evaluate the performance of the superintendent. Mr. Anfinson contends that the statement that the Board discussed the superintendent's strengths and weaknesses does not constitute an adequate summarization of the Board's conclusions regarding the superintendent's performance. Mr. Anfinson wrote: . . . it is difficult to see how the legislature intended that such useless generalities as announced by Ms. Hirsch would meet the statutory mandate to provide a report on the conclusions after a closed evaluation session. In his response to the Commissioner, Mr. Ratwick cited Minnesota case law in support of the District's position that additional data about the superintendent's performance evaluation could not be released. However, the Minnesota Legislature amended both the Open Meeting Law and Chapter 13 subsequent to the issuance of cases cited by Mr. Ratwick. In a 1989 Minnesota Supreme Court case, the Court, inter alia, established the principle that governing bodies could close any and all meetings to discuss not public data. (See Annandale Advocate v. City of Annandale, 435 N.W.2d 24 (Minn. 1989).) The Supreme Court also invited the Legislature to take action if it did not like the conclusions the Court reached in Annandale. In response, the Legislature amended the Open Meeting Law in 1990. (See Laws of Minnesota 1990, Chapter 550, section 2.) The intent of those amendments was to harmonize the relationship between the Open Meeting Law and the Data Practices Act. As a part of those amendments, the Legislature addressed the high public interest in the performance of certain public employees, and, in particular, employees about whom personnel decisions are made by governing bodies subject to the Open Meeting Law. The Legislature authorized governing bodies to close meetings to discuss personnel data about public employees, including performance evaluations, subject to certain limitations. However, the Legislature also clearly required that once a public body completed its closed-meeting evaluation of an employee subject to its authority, the body must, at its next public meeting, summarize its conclusions regarding the evaluation. (See section 471.705, subdivision 1d(d), and Laws of Minnesota 1990, Chapter 550, section 2.) Further, according to section 13.03, subdivision 11, [n]ot public data may be discussed at a meeting open to the public to the extent provided in section 471.705, subdivision 1d. (See Laws of Minnesota 1994, Chapter 618, article 1, section 2.) Accordingly, the District was required to provide a summary of its conclusions regarding the superintendent's performance evaluation at its next meeting open to the public. The Commissioner does not agree that the statement made by the Board chair, and reflected in the meeting minutes, that the Board discussed the superintendent's strengths and weaknesses, constitutes a summary of its conclusions regarding the performance evaluation of the superintendent. Opinion:Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue raised by Mr. Anfinson is as follows:
Signed:
David F. Fisher
Dated: June 30, 1999 |
Legislative authority and intent
Personnel data
Closed meetings
Open Meeting Law
Personnel data
Employee evaluation summary
Employee evaluation summary
