Advisory Opinion 03-036
September 15, 2003; City of La Crescent
Background & Issues
A newspaper editor asked the City of La Crescent for a copy of a memorandum of understanding signed with a departing employee and the status of any complaints in the employee's personnel file. The city administrator denied access because he was unsure whether the documents were public. The Commissioner was asked to determine whether the city responded appropriately to the request for public employee records.
Commissioner Decision
The Commissioner could not definitively evaluate the city's response without knowing the contents of the memorandum, but concluded that the document is public if it settles an employment dispute. In addition, the Commissioner determined that the existence and status of any complaints against the employee are public.
Automated synopsis generated for quick reference only — it has not been reviewed word-for-word against the official record and is not legal advice. Always review the full opinion text below for the Commissioner's actual determination, or see the original document on mn.gov. Think this summary misstates the opinion? Report it.
Excerpted Ruling / ConclusionBased on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issues that Mr. van der Linden raised is as follows:
The Commissioner cannot determine, with certainty, whether the City of La Crescent responded appropriately to the request for a copy of a memorandum of understanding (MOU) and the status of any complaints against the employee. However, if the MOU contains data constituting the terms of an agreement settling any dispute arising out of an employment relationship between the City and the employee, those data are public pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43, subdivision 2(6). If the MOU does not contain those data, the Commissioner is unable to comment on the classification of the data in the MOU.
In addition, the existence and status of any complaints or charges against the officer are public pursuant to section 13.43, subdivision 2(4).
September 15, 2003; City of La Crescent
9/15/2003 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 August 21, 2003, IPAD received a letter dated August 19, 2003, from Thomas van der Linden, editor of the Houston County News. In his letter, Mr. van der Linden asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding his access to certain data that the City of La Crescent maintains. IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Bill Waller, the City's Administrator, in response to Mr. van der Linden's request. The purposes of this letter, dated August 26, 2003, were to inform him of Mr. van der Linden's request and to ask him to provide information or support for the City's position. On September 8, 2003, IPAD received a response, dated same, from Mr. Waller. A summary of the facts is as follows. In his opinion request, Mr. van der Linden wrote: In May of this year, the city signed a memo of understanding with [an employee] as the [employee] was leaving [his/her] job with the [City]. I asked for a copy of the memo of understanding, and also asked to look at documents in the [employee's] personnel file that are made public under the [Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13], specifically the status of any complaints against the [employee] as per Minnesota Statute section 13.43, subdivision 2(a). The city administrator, Bill Waller, refused to let me examine those documents because he is unsure if they are public. He supported asking [the Commissioner] for an opinion. Issue:In his request for an opinion, Mr. van der Linden asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
Discussion:Before proceeding, the Commissioner notes he is limiting the discussion in this advisory opinion to the City's response to Mr. van der Linden's request for a copy of a memorandum of understanding (MOU) and the status of any complaints or charges against the [employee]. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 1, all government data are public unless otherwise classified. Data about current and former employees are classified pursuant to section 13.43. Subdivision 2 of section 13.43 lists the types of personnel data that are public and subdivision 4 classifies most other personnel data as private. Subdivision 2(a)(4) of section 13.43 states that the existence and status of any complaints or charges against an employee are public. Subdivision 2(a)(6) states that the following is public: the terms of any agreement settling any dispute arising out of an employment relationship, including a buyout agreement as defined in section 123B.143, subdivision 2, paragraph (a); except that the agreement must include specific reasons for the agreement if it involves the payment of more than $10,000 of public money. In his comments to the Commissioner, Mr. Waller wrote: Section 13.43, Subd. 2, describes Public Data. Since the Memorandum of Understanding, does not fall within any of the classes of data described as Public Data, it is the position of the City that not being Public Data under Section 13.42 [sic], Subd. 2 it is private data under, and regulated by Section 13.43, Subd. 4. In this situation, the Commissioner has not seen the MOU and does not know why the employee left his/her job with the City. However, the existence of an MOU indicates there was an issue that needed to be resolved. If the MOU contains data constituting the terms of an agreement settling any dispute arising out of the employee's employment relationship with the City, those data are public. If, however, the MOU does not contain those data, the Commissioner is not in a position to comment as to how the data in the MOU might be classified. Mr. van der Linden also asked to look at the status of any complaints or charges against the employee. Pursuant to section 13.43, subdivision 2(a)(4), the existence and status of any complaints or charges are public. A final note is in order. In his response, Mr. Waller stated that because MOUs are not listed in section 13.43, subdivision 2, as one of the types of data that are public, the City cannot release the document Mr. van der Linden requested. The Commissioner reminds his readers that Chapter 13 operates at the level of individual data elements, not at the document level. Here, if the data in the MOU constitute the terms of an agreement settling a dispute arising out of an employment relationship, they are public regardless of the title of the document. Opinion:Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issues that Mr. van der Linden raised is as follows:
Signed:
Brian J. Lamb
Dated: September 15, 2003 |