This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued under Minnesota Statutes, section 13.072 (2024). It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.

Facts and Procedural History:

Independent School District No. 93, Carlton (District), asked for an advisory opinion from the Commissioner regarding the classification of personnel data it maintained about an employee who was a public official. Legal counsel for the former public official submitted comments on her behalf.

The District provided the following summary of facts:

This request follows a data request, dated April 24, 2025, submitted to the District by reporter Macklin Caruso. Mr. Caruso works for the Pine Journal. The District also received a similar data request from Jana Peterson, editor of the Pine Knot News, on April 30, 2025. …

… On February 27, 2025, the District’s School Board authorized an investigation into concerns related to its former Superintendent. The District hired an outside investigator to conduct the investigation. On April 9, 2025, the outside investigator submitted his final report. The investigation was closed as of this date.

On April 18, 2025, the School Board conducted a special meeting, which included a closed session pursuant to Minnesota Statutes section 13D.05, subdivision 2(b) for preliminary consideration of allegations against the former Superintendent. The School Board did not take any official action with respect to the results of the investigation at this meeting. On April 20, 2025, the former Superintendent submitted a letter of resignation. The School Board accepted the former Superintendent’s resignation at its regular meeting on April 21, 2025.

On April 24, 2024, Mr. Caruso sent Board Chair Laura Nilsen a formal Minnesota Government Data Practices Act request for “the Carlton School Board’s investigation into a complaint against [the former Superintendent] and her resignation letter.” On April 30, 2025, Ms. Peterson sent a data request to Chair Nilsen seeking, among other things, “a copy of the investigation report into the complaint against [the former Superintendent.]”

Issues:

Discussion:

Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43, classifies data on individuals that a government entity maintains because the individual is or was an employee of a government entity. Section 13.43, subdivision 2 describes types of personnel data designated as public and subdivision 4 classifies all other personnel data as private.

Generally, only the existence and status of a complaint or charge against an employee are public data unless there is a final disposition of disciplinary action. (See section 13.43, subdivision 2(a)(4) and (5).)

However, section 13.43, subdivision 2(e)(4)(iv) identifies certain employees who work for local-level government entities, such as a school district, as “public officials,” which includes “individuals defined as superintendents … under Minnesota Rules, part 3512.0100.” All data relating to a complaint or charge against a local public official becomes public data if specific conditions are met.

Section 13.43, subdivision 2(f) states that data relating to a complaint or charge against an employee who is identified under subdivision 2(e)(4) become public only if:

(1) the complaint or charge results in disciplinary action or the employee resigns or is terminated from employment while the complaint or charge is pending; or

(2) potential legal claims arising out of the conduct that is the subject of the complaint or charge are released as part of a settlement agreement.

Issue 1: What is the classification of data maintained by Independent School District 93, Carlton, relating to a complaint or charge about a public official who resigned after a personnel investigation was completed but prior to the school board taking any official action based on the results of the investigation?

In its request to the Commissioner, the District identified previous advisory opinions addressing data classification when a public official has resigned while a complaint was pending.

In Advisory Opinion 15-006, a city’s finance director, who was a public official, resigned after the city completed a draft of an investigative report about a complaint against her but before the report was finalized. The Commissioner determined that all data related to the complaint were public because the finance director resigned while the complaint was still pending.

In Advisory Opinion 18-008, a county sheriff, who the county considered an employee for data practices purposes, informed the county he intended to retire after it received an external investigative report related to a personnel complaint against him. The Commissioner determined the retirement was akin to a resignation and opined that all data related to the complaint would be public if the complaint was still pending on the date the sheriff’s retirement became effective. However, the Commissioner noted that, given the facts at hand, the data in the investigative report would have been classified as private personnel data because the sheriff had not yet retired at the time the data requester had asked for access to the complaint data.

The District added:

As a result, the District seeks an advisory opinion on whether data regarding allegations against the former Superintendent in the April 9, 2025 investigation report is public under paragraphs (e) and (f) in Minnesota Statutes section 13.43, subdivision 2 when the former Superintendent resigned after an investigation was closed, but before the School Board took any official action based on the results of the investigation.

The Commissioner also offered the former public official whose data are at issue in this opinion an opportunity to submit comments regarding the classification of the data. In response, the official’s legal counsel wrote:

[T]he plain statutory language does not permit disclosure under the circumstances. [The public official] was the District’s Superintendent at the time the District received allegations and conducted an investigation. Therefore Minn. Stat. §13.43, subd. 2(f) applies. [She] resigned of her own volition after the District’s investigation was completed and closed, not while it was pending as required by the statute. Further, [she] was never disciplined based on the allegations or investigation findings. [The official] also never entered into a settlement agreement. The statutory language provides explicit scenarios for complaint and investigation information to become public—none of which are met here. These are the only avenues by which this information can become public; otherwise, the data remains private. Because [she] did not resign while a complaint was pending, receive any disciplinary action or enter into a settlement agreement, the data requested is not public and should not be disclosed by the District.

Section 13.43, subd. 2(f) states that data related to a complaint or charge against a local public official become public if “the complaint or charge results in disciplinary action or the employee resigns or is terminated from employment while the complaint or charge is pending.” (Emphasis added.)

The plain language of subdivision 2(f) indicates that the applicable determination of whether data related to a complaint or charge against a public official become public depends on the procedural status of the complaint or charge itself, which is not necessarily the same as the status of a personnel investigation into the public official’s conduct.

The Commissioner is not familiar with all processes that government entities may use when considering complaints or charges against employees. However, in many situations, a complaint against a government employee is not immediately resolved upon the completion of a personnel investigation report. Rather, the appropriate authority within a government entity must review the findings of the report to determine whether to take disciplinary action. A complaint remains pending in the interim between the completion of an investigation report and the entity’s determination of whether to take disciplinary action against the employee or to formally close the complaint without discipline. If a local public official resigns during this interim period, then data relating to the complaint or charge become public under the language of section 13.43, subd. 2(f)(1).

Here, the District has not suggested that the complaint against the public official was immediately resolved or closed without discipline upon the outside investigator submitting his final investigative report to the District on April 9. Instead, the District explained the School Board held a meeting on April 18, and it did not take any official action related to the investigation of the public official’s conduct. As a result, the complaint against the public official remained pending because the School Board had not determined whether it would discipline the public official or formally close the pending complaint. On April 20, the public official offered her resignation to the School Board, which it accepted the following day.

The District did not offer any information to indicate that the School Board closed the pending complaint without discipline between its April 18 meeting and its decision to accept the public official’s resignation on April 21. Therefore, the complaint was still pending before the School Board at the time of the public official’s resignation. All data related to the complaint against the public official became public under section 13.43, subd. 2(f) upon the Board’s acceptance of her resignation.

Issue 2: What is the classification of data contained in a resignation letter the public official submitted to the school district?

In its request to the Commissioner, the District wrote:

As to Mr. Caruso’s request for the former Superintendent’s resignation letter, the District’s position is that an employee’s letter of resignation is typically private under Minnesota Statutes section 13.43, subdivision 4. The Superintendent’s resignation letter made no reference to any complaint or charge against her. As a result, the District believes the letter is private data on her and is seeking the Commissioner’s confirmation of the same.

The Commissioner agrees with the District’s analysis.

Section 13.43, subd. 2 does not designate data contained within an employee’s resignation letter as public data. Additionally, the District has not indicated that the resignation was the result of a settlement agreement that released any potential legal claims arising out of the conduct that was the subject of a complaint against the public official. (See section 13.43, subd. 2(f)(2).)

Therefore, the data in the resignation letter are classified as private under section 13.43, subd. 4.

Opinion:

Based on the facts and information provided, the Commissioner’s opinion on the issues are as follows:

1. Data maintained by Independent School District 93, Carlton, relating to a complaint or charge about a public official who resigned after a personnel investigation was completed but prior to the school board taking any official action based on the results of the investigation are public data because the official resigned while the complaint was still pending.
2. Data contained in a resignation letter that the public official submitted to the school district are classified as private data under section 13.43, subdivision 4.

Signed:

Tamar Gronvall
Commissioner

June 9, 2025