To return to this list after selecting an opinion, click on the "View entire list" link above the opinion title.
May 15, 2002; School District 299 (Caledonia)
5/15/2002 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:On April 30, 2002, IPAD received a letter from Mark Anfinson, an attorney representing the Caledonia Argus and its managing editor, Jane Palen. In his letter, Mr. Anfinson asked the Commissioner to issue an opinion regarding the newspaper's access to certain data that School District 299, Caledonia, maintains. IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Percy Lingen, Superintendent of the District, in response to Mr. Anfinson's request. The purposes of this letter, dated April 30, 2002, 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 6, 2002, IPAD received a response, dated May 3, 2002, from Superintendent Lingen. A summary of the facts is as follows. On April 2, 2002, the District's School Board conducted a closed meeting to evaluate the performance of Superintendent Lingen. On April 8, 2002, the Board released a statement, dated April 2, 2002, regarding the evaluation. The statement reads: The board met in closed session from 10:15 p.m. to 12:20 a.m. on Tuesday, April 2, 2002, to review the performance evaluation of Superintendent Lingen. As a result of that review, strengths were noted and areas of improvement were defined. The board developed goals regarding communication and leadership. In a letter dated April 10, 2002, Ms. Palen wrote to the Board chair, Cheryl Whitesitt. Ms. Palen stated: ...While the statement describes what took place at the evaluation, we do not feel it follows the requirement of Minnesota Statues [sic] 13D.05 (The open meeting law) subd. 3(b) [sic] which reads: A public body may close a meeting to evaluate the performance of an individual who is subject to its authority... At its next open meeting, the public body shall summarize its conclusions regarding the evaluation. In a letter dated April 12, 2002, Ms. Whitesitt wrote, The board believes that its statement concerning the closed session regarding the evaluation of Superintendent Lingen is appropriate and in keeping with the statutory requirements to 'summarize' it's [sic] personnel evaluation with the superintendent. Issue:In his request for an opinion, Mr. Anfinson asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
Discussion:Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13D, the Open Meeting Law, most public bodies must hold their meetings open to the public. However, there are some exceptions to this general rule. One is in the case of a public body evaluating the performance of an individual subject to its authority. Pursuant to section 13D.05, subdivision 3, if a public body has closed a meeting to evaluate an individual's performance, at its next open meeting, the public body shall summarize its conclusions regarding the evaluation. In his comments, Superintendent Lingen wrote: ...The school board's summary statement indicates that its performance evaluation of the superintendent identified both strengths and weaknesses. A reasonable person should be able to surmise, from such a statement, that the school board is not completely satisfied with the superintendent's performance. To more specifically address the areas of weak employee performance that the school board identified would have placed it in jeopardy of violating Minnesota Statutes 13.43, Subd. 4. Superintendent Lingen also stated that if the Commissioner's opinion is that the District did not properly respond to the newspaper's request, he (Superintendent Lingen) would appreciate the Commissioner discussing what constitutes a summary. In Advisory Opinion 99-018, the Commissioner addressed an issue similar to the one at hand. He wrote: 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.).... 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. In Advisory Opinion 99-018, the Commissioner also noted that not public data may be discussed at a meeting open to the public to the extent provided in section 13D.05. (See section 13.03, subdivision 11.) Further, section 13D.05, subdivision 1(b), states: Data that are not public data may be discussed at a meeting subject to this chapter 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. The Commissioner's position on the issue at hand has not changed. The Board's statement does not constitute a summary for purposes of section 13D.05, subdivision 3(a). Government entities seeking guidance on what to summarize can look to the language of the Open Meeting Law. Specifically, Chapter 13D directs a governing body to summarize its conclusions regarding a personnel evaluation. How a public body approaches the evaluation will determine exactly which data it should summarize. The public body should carefully review the specific points it established in reaching a conclusion about the performance evaluation. Clearly, the language of the Open Meeting Law indicates that the governing body ought to summarize each salient point of the evaluation so that the public is given the opportunity to get the best possible sense of the performance - good, bad, or indifferent - of the public employee. Opinion:Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue that Mr. Anfinson raised is as follows:
Signed: David F. Fisher
Dated: May 15, 2002 |
Personnel data
Closed meetings
Open Meeting Law
Employee evaluation summary
Employee evaluation summary
