Issue:

In his request for an opinion, Mr. Anfinson asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:

Discussion:

Data about public employees are classified at Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43. Specifically, certain data related to and stemming from complaints and/or charges made about employees are classified as public:

the existence and status of any complaints or charges against the employee, regardless of whether the complaint or charge resulted in a disciplinary action;

(see subdivision 2(a)(4)) and

the final disposition of any disciplinary action together with the specific reasons for the action and data documenting the basis of the action, excluding data that would identify confidential sources who are employees of the public body; (see subdivision 2(a)(5).

Final disposition is defined at subdivision 2(b).

According to Mr. Rupp, the final disposition of the disciplinary action has not occurred. He stated: [i]f the School District releases the names of the terminated employees, at least two items of data will be disclosed: (1) that the complaints against the employees have been substantiated by the School District and (2) that the employees have been fired. Such release is improper. Mr. Rupp cited Advisory Opinions 01-037 and 94-042, and further stated:

In this case, the name of the employee and the nature of the proposed disciplinary action are inextricably intertwined. The newspaper is already aware of the nature of the discipline because the School Board's resolution states that the two employees have been terminated. If the School District releases the identity of the two employees who were terminated, it will release the nature of the disciplinary action taken against these two employees.

As noted by Mr. Rupp, the Commissioner addressed a very similar issue in Advisory Opinion 94-042. In that situation, a City held a closed meeting for the purpose of considering charges against a City employee. When the meeting was reopened, the City Council voted to discipline an employee. A newspaper asked for the employee's name and the nature of the discipline, which the City refused. The Commissioner opined:

The name of a public employee, against whom complaints or charges have been made and discipline proposed, is public data pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.43. The nature of the proposed disciplinary action is private unless and until the proposed disciplinary action becomes final.

What distinguishes that situation from the instant case is that here, the School Board disclosed the nature of the discipline, i.e., termination, at the public meeting. However, its mistake in disclosing more data than it should have does not negate its obligation to release to the public the names of the employees, which are public under section 13.43, subdivision 2.

Mr. Rupp also stated that if the District were to release the names of the terminated employees, it would improperly disclose that complaints against the employees have been substantiated by the District. He cited Advisory Opinion 01-037 to support his position, in which the Commissioner opined:

It is correct that section 13.43, subdivision 2(a)(4), clearly states that status of a complaint or charge is public, and, under different circumstances, an entity's disclosure that a complaint had been substantiated might be appropriate. However, as the Commissioner has previously discussed, if a final disposition has not occurred (as is the case here), an entity's release of status information should not disclose particular details regarding a complaint. The problem in this situation is that Ms. Becker, in revealing to the complainant parents that their complaint had been substantiated, released much more than status information. She implicitly informed them that the very things they had alleged about X were correct. Thus, in this particular fact situation, the Commissioner opines that the District inappropriately released data about X. An appropriate response would have been a statement that the investigation had been completed and that the District was initiating disciplinary action.

The circumstances in that case are not comparable to this one. There, the District told the complainants that their complaints had been substantiated, which clearly revealed the nature and substance of the complaints prior to final disciplinary action. The Commissioner qualified his comments in that case as applying to that particular fact situation. He has not been provided any information that suggests that the circumstances here are similar.

Opinion:

Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue raised by Mr. Anfinson is as follows:

Signed:

David F. Fisher
Commissioner

Dated: July 30, 2001