Discussion:

Section 13.43 provides that certain data about public employees are public, and that all other personnel data are private. Of relevance to this Opinion, Subdivision 2 (a) clauses 4 and 5, provide that the following data are public: the existence and status of any complaints or charges against an employee; 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.

In addition, Section 13.43, subdivision 2 (b), defines, for the purposes of Chapter 13, the term final disposition as:

The answer to Mr. Rupp's question depends, therefore, on whether disciplinary action was taken by ISD #324 and, if so, whether a final disposition occurred regarding the disciplinary action. Because Chapter 13 does not specifically define the term disciplinary action it is appropriate to seek further guidance. The American Heritage Dictionary, Second College Edition, Houghton Mifflin Company, 1985, in relevant part defines discipline as, To punish or penalize. Action, also in relevant part, is defined as, an act or thing done. Thus, a reasonable interpretation of disciplinary action is an act that either punishes or penalizes.

The first document (Exhibit 1) is a copy of a memo dated in November of 1995 addressed to an employee from someone who apparently is in a supervisory position. The memo discusses three situations that need to be addressed. Essentially, the memo informs the employee that s/he should have managed the situations differently and states, ...you must handle students more diplomatically. The last paragraph of the memo states, Any action which puts any student in an embarrassing situation should not occur. It if does, disciplinary action willtake place. (Emphasis added.)

It appears the purpose of this document is to serve as a threat of punishment or penalty to the employee; not to set forth discipline being taken by ISD #324. There is no mention of punishment and the document refers to the possibility of future discipline if further problems occur. Therefore, because it appears no disciplinary action was taken regarding the incidents described in Exhibit 1, it is only the following data which are public: the fact that a complaint exists and the status of that complaint.

The second document (Exhibit 2) is a copy of a memo dated in January of 1995 from the same supervisor to an employee. In the memo, which is stated as regarding a Reprimand (emphasis added), the supervisor states that s/he received a complaint regarding the employee's language. Also in the memo, the supervisor directs the employee to cease all swearing and other inappropriate comments. The supervisor further states, I am directing you to apologize by [specific date]...Should you choose to disregard this directive, you will be subject to furtherdiscipline which may include dismissal. (Emphasis added.)

In the case of Exhibit 2, it does appear that disciplinary action was taken by ISD #324 against the employee. The employee was punished by being directed to apologize for the use of certain inappropriate comments. Adding credence to the position that discipline has occurred is the supervisor's statement that if an apology is not forthcoming, the employee might find her/himself subject to further discipline; apparently the supervisor views the act of being forced to apologize as a form of discipline. The Commissioner agrees.

Thus, in regard to Exhibit 2, the following data are public: the fact that a complaint exists; the status of the complaint (discipline taken); the final disposition of any disciplinary action (directed to apologize); and the specific reasons for the action and any data documenting the basis of the action. (In this situation, a final disposition has occurred because, according to Mr. Rupp, no grievance was filed and the time period within which the employee had the right to do so has expired.)
The third document (Exhibit 3) is a copy of a memo dated in July of 1994 from the Superintendent to an employee. The memo is in regards to a Building Permit Issue. In the memo, the Superintendent refers to an incident whereby the employee apparently built something without first acquiring a building permit from the City of Jackson. In the memo, the Superintendent states he is asking the employee to do the following: apply for the building permit and pay any fines or fees; turn in any bills for cement work; and turn in quotes for materials and labor. The Superintendent also wrote, In the future, it is critical that you follow all rules that apply. Seek and gain approval before starting a project and follow-up [sic] with the appropriate paper work when completed.

In the case of Exhibit 3, it does not appear that any disciplinary action has been taken by ISD #324. Rather, the employee was asked by the Superintendent to take action to further the building project. Although the employee was required to pay any fines levied by the City of Jackson, such action does not constitute discipline imposed by the District. Therefore, only the following data relating to Exhibit 3 are public: the fact that a complaint exists and the status of that complaint.

The fourth document (Exhibit 4) is a copy of a memo dated in February of 1994 and is addressed to an employee from the Superintendent. The subject of the memo is Chaining and Padlocking Exit Doors. The Superintendent wrote, It was brought to my attention this morning, that you have chained and padlocked exit doors at the [school event]...Immediately, the practice of chaining and padlocking exit doors must be discontinued...Any further violations will[emphasis added] be cause for suspension.

Again, it does not appear that the ISD #324 employee was punished or penalized as a result of the complaint referenced in Exhibit 4. Rather, the employee was instructed to cease his/her practice of chaining and padlocking certain exit doors. As the case with Exhibit 1, this document refers to disciplinary action being taken in the future if problems continue. Thus, only the following data relating to Exhibit 3 are public: the fact that a complaint exists and the status of that complaint.
The fifth document (Exhibit 5) is a copy of a memo dated in April of 1994 and addressed to an employee from a supervisor. The stated subject of the memo is Notice of Deficiency. The term Notice of Deficiency has evolved out of language in Minnesota Statutes Section 125.12, subdivision 6. Section 125.12, subdivision 6, states:

In regard to Exhibit 5, at the beginning of the memo, the Superintendent states, This letter will constitute a notice of deficiency pursuant to Minnesota Statute 125.12, Subd.6. You are requested to correct the following deficiencies:... S/he goes on to list various deficiencies such as, Be very careful... , Be very patient... , use discretion... , Be prepared... , and so on.
Thus, because the data contained in this Notice of Deficiency do not represent discipline or punishment taken by ISD #324, only the following data are public: the fact that any complaints exists and the status of those complaints.

The sixth document is a copy of a memo (Exhibit 6) dated in March of 1993 directed to an employee from the Superintendent. Attached to this memo is a copy of minutes from an Athletic Council meeting. According to the minutes, at the meeting there ensued a discussion regarding the problem of the overlapping of winter and spring sports. In the memo, the Superintendent wrote, The action of the Council was that you would work with [other staff] and draft a policy to eliminate this problem. Why wasn't this done? The memo ends with the following: ...this is just another incident in which you are unwilling to carry out your duties as an[specific title]. Therefore, the lack of confidencein your leadership by the [other staff].

Again, the contents of this document do not appear to indicate that any punishment was taken by the District against the employee. The document discusses a performance problem but does not refer to any penalty regarding that performance. Therefore, only the following data relating to Exhibit 6 are public: the fact that a complaint exists and the status of that complaint.

The seventh document (Exhibit 7) is a copy of a memo dated in November of 1989 and is directed to an employee from what appears to be a supervisor. This memo is stated as regarding a Notice of Deficiency. The supervisor wrote, This letter will constitute a notice of deficiency pursuant to Minnesota statute 125.12, Subdivision 6. You are requested to correct the following deficiencies: inefficiency; neglect of duty; persistent disregard to administrative direction and other good and sufficient grounds. The memo then lists nine deficiencies. The supervisor then stated, If appropriate changes are not made by [upcoming date], appropriate disciplinary measures willbe taken. (Emphasis added.)

As is the case with Exhibit 5, because the data contained in this Notice of Deficiency do not represent discipline or punishment taken by ISD #324, only the following data are public: the fact that any complaints exist and the status of those complaints.

The eighth document (Exhibit 8) is a copy of a letter addressed to an employee from a school principal. The letter is dated in May of 1987. In the letter, the principal briefly discussed an incident in which the employee apparently used inappropriate language. The principal wrote:

The ninth document (Exhibit 9) is a copy of a memo addressed to an employee from a Superintendent dated in July of 1996. The stated subject of the memo is Insubordination. The employee apparently engaged in an activity in which s/he had been instructed not to engage. The superintendent wrote:

Exhibit 10 consists of copies of two documents; one addressed to the ISD #324 Superintendent from the executive director of an outside entity and the other addressed to an employee from the ISD #324 Superintendent. The first document is dated in December of 1992 and discusses the fact that the entity had censured an ISD #324 employee. The letter states, This letter serves as official sanction, and the appropriate notification of such sanction should be sent to [the employee]. You, as the designated school representative, should inform [the employee] in writing, of the violation....

The second letter is a copy of the letter, also dated in December of 1992, from the Superintendent to the employee regarding the above-discussed incident. The Superintendent wrote, The [entity]...voted to issue a censure to you for the above violations. I view this action as a very serious indictment of our school district.... While the Superintendent noted the seriousness of the outside entity's decision, s/he apparently did not impose any punishment as a result of the entity's censure. Therefore, while a complaint was lodged, no discipline was apparently taken against the employee by ISD #324. Consequently, only the following data are public: the fact that a complaint exists and the status of that complaint.

It should be noted that if Mr. Rupp had presented Exhibits 1-10 as a documentation of progressive discipline against one employee, the outcome of this opinion might have been different. Take, for example, a situation in which four complaints were made over a period of time about the same employee, and disciplinary action was taken only in relation to the third complaint. When a fifth complaint occurred and disciplinary action was taken, data which originally were private regarding the first, second, third, and fourth complaint might become public in relation to the fifth complaint if those data served to document the basis of the disciplinary action regarding complaint number five. However, in his request, Mr. Rupp appears to have presented each document on its own, not as part of a succession regarding the same employee.

Opinion: