8.10. SR 03-21-1994 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

e e MPELRA NEWSLETTER - classified as "public" or "not public." In particular. issues have arisen regarding the language in the Government Data Practices Act that states that the following data is public: the existence and status of any complaints or charges against the employee. whether or not the complaint or charge resulted in a disciplinary action; 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; and the terms of any agreement settling administrative or jUdicial proceedings. "Final disposition" is defined as... a final disposition occurs when the state agency. statewi de system or political subdivision makes its final decision about the disciplinary action. regardless of the possibility of any later proceedings or court proceedings. In the case of arbitration proceedings arising under collective bargaining agreements. a final disposition occurs at the conclusion of the arbitration proceedings. Final disposition includes a resignation by any individual when the resignation occurs after the final decision of the state agency. statewide system. political subdivision. or arbitrator. The above provisions represent changes made by the 1990 Legislature. These legislative changes. which broadened the definition of public data. were tri ggered by the Mi nnesota Supreme Court decision in Annandale Advocate v. City of Annandal.e. In the Annandale case. the City Council had met to discuss an investigative report involving the police chief. The City held a closed meeting. discussed the report. and passed a resolution discharging the police chief. A newspaper subsequently sought access to the i nvesti gati ve report regardi ng the alleged misconduct of the police chief. The Minnesota Supreme Court held that the report was private data under the Government Data Practices Act because there was no final disposition of the cas~. Although the City Council had made its final decision. the police chief had the opportunity to use the Veterans Preference Act procedure. The Court held that this was true even though it would have been possible that the report wou 1 d never be re 1 eased if the pol ice ch i ef and the City Counc 11 arrived at a settlement of the matter. Therefore. the portion of the meeting which discussed the contents of the report were properly closed. However. the Minnesota Supreme Court held that the meeting should have been open during the portion of the _eting that did not involve discussions of the ..content of the report. The portion of the meeting that should have remained open included discussions concerning: the fact that the report exi sted; the fact that the City Council had considered the report; the role the report played in the dec is i on to terminate the police chief; and the terms of any settlement. '" The 1990 amendments to the Government Data Practices Act were designed to alter the result in the Annanda1e decision. The statutory amendment interprets the term "fina1 disposition" as a final. decision. This interpretation means that the investigative report in Annanda1e would have become public following the City Council's final decision even though the police chief had access to the Veterans Preference Act procedure. - 1:3 -