This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued under Minnesota Statutes, section 13.072 (2025). It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.

Facts and Procedural History:

Cass County asked for an advisory opinion about whether a specific employee within the government entity was considered a public official under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 (Data Practices Act).

The County provided the following summary of facts:

Cass County received a complaint against a Deputy Sheriff with the rank of Patrol Sergeant and initiated an external investigation into the complaint. The investigation was conducted by attorney Kristi A. Hastings. On June 13, 2025, Hastings issued her investigative report to Cass County. During the grievance process relating to the discipline that was proposed by the County following the investigation, the Deputy Sheriff and the County reached a settlement whereby the Deputy Sheriff resigned from his position with the County and waived any claims against the County. …

The County is seeking clarification of the classification of the investigation report and, specifically, whether the Deputy Sheriff who is the subject of the report is a “public official” as that term is defined in Minn. Stat. §13.43, subd. 2(e)(5)(iii), thereby making the investigation report public.

The County also provided a position description of a patrol sergeant, which was the position title of the deputy sheriff.

Issue:

Discussion:

The Data Practices Act presumes government data are public, unless otherwise classified as not public. (Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 1.)

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).) Therefore, investigative data related to a complaint or charge remain private if an employee resigns while the complaint or charge is pending because there can be no final disposition of a disciplinary action.

However, section 13.43, subdivision 2(e)(5) identifies specific employees of political subdivisions as “public officials.” Paragraph (iii) of subdivision 2(e)(5) states that “managers; chiefs; heads or directors of departments, divisions, bureaus, or boards; and any equivalent position” in cities or counties are “public officials.”

If a public official resigns while a complaint or charge is pending or releases any legal claims as part of settlement agreement with an entity regarding the conduct that is the subject of the complaint or charge, then all data related to the complaint become public data, including any investigative data. (See section 13.43, subdivision 2(f).)

In its request, the County wrote:

The Patrol Sergeant position is not a “chief,” a “head or director” of a department, division, bureau, or Board, which leaves the only remaining position subject to this provision “manager.” As a Patrol Sergeant, the Deputy Sheriff supervised 6 patrol deputies and when the Sheriff and Chief Deputy were not available, was required to respond to questions from other Sheriff’s Office employees in the jail, dispatch, and record. … However, given the scope of responsibilities of the other categories of employees included within this subdivision, and the lack of equivalent responsibility for a Patrol Sergeant, the County does not believe the Patrol Sergeant qualifies as a manager as the term is used in this subdivision.

The Commissioner agrees with the County’s analysis.

The descriptors the Legislature provided in section 13.43, subdivision 2(e)(5)(iii) suggest that “public officials” include employees within a county who have broad leadership and oversight duties within different business units of the county’s governance structure.

Although “managers” is not defined in section 13.43, its inclusion with other terms, such as “chiefs” and “heads or directors,” indicates that an employee who is a “manager” must hold a similar administrative role. The plain language of the clause does not include “supervisors” within the category of county public officials, and the fact that an employee has some supervisory duties does not automatically make the individual a manager for the purposes of subdivision 2(e)(5)(iii).

Here, the County explained that the deputy sheriff’s position description makes clear that the individual was neither a “chief” or a “head or director” of any department, division, bureau, or board within the County. Further, the description does not indicate that the deputy sheriff was tasked with administrative oversight of the sheriff’s office itself or given similar independent leadership duties to ensure the whole office functioned appropriately.

Rather, the deputy sheriff was a member of the office’s administrative staff and one of several sergeants who reported to the chief deputy sheriff. The position description clarifies that the deputy sheriff made recommendations about whether probationary personnel should be granted permanent status but did not make final probationary decisions. The description required the deputy sheriff to assist in preparing budgets, but it did not state the deputy sheriff had final authority over budgetary decisions.

The deputy sheriff was responsible for making efforts to be present at scenes of major crimes or accidents but maintained lead investigative duties only until a superior officer or investigator arrived. Finally, the description noted the deputy sheriff would assume responsibilities and duties of the sheriff only “in the absence of the Sheriff and Chief Deputy or Lieutenant,” indicating that the deputy sheriff was not generally in a position of broad leadership authority.

In reviewing the position description, the Commissioner agrees with the County that the scope of the deputy sheriff’s responsibilities, when compared to other types of employees described under section 13.43, subd. 2(e)(5)(iii), would not make the deputy sheriff a “manager.” Therefore, the deputy sheriff is not a public official as contemplated in section 13.43, subd. 2(e)(5)(iii), meaning data in the investigative report regarding the complaint against the deputy sheriff are classified as private under section 13.43. However, the terms of the settlement agreement between the former deputy sheriff and the County are public data under section 13.43, subd. 2(a)(6).

Opinion:

Based on the facts and information provided, the Commissioner’s opinion on the issue is as follows:

A deputy sheriff in Cass County is not a “public official” as defined in Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43, subdivision 2(e)(5)(iii).

Signed:

Tamar Gronvall
Commissioner

July 16, 2026