Caledonia Argus

Why we filed a lawsuit

Posted: 6/25/02

In last weekís newspaper, we announced that The Argus is suing the ISD #299 school board for violating the open meetings law and data practices act.

We realize that our readers might have some questions regarding the reason for the lawsuit, so weíd like to address the issue here.

The first question, of course, is ìWhy is The Argus suing the school board?î

The answer to that is simple. It is because of you.

As a citizen, you elect public officials to work on your behalf. Without a doubt, things would move along a lot more efficiently if school board, county board, and city councils, could meet in private, discuss all their business in private and make decisions in private. But would the public be better off? Of course not. Thatís not how government in this country is supposed to work. We as citizens are supposed to have the opportunity to scrutinize the decisions and actions made on our behalf. Public officials must answer to the public.

In very rare instances, public bodies are given the opportunity to meet in private. The school board was acting within its rights when it closed its meetings in July of 2001 and April of 2002 to discuss the evaluation of Superintendent Percy Lingen. While the law allows a public body to close a meeting to evaluate any person subject to its authority, it also requires that at its next meeting, that the body must give the public a summary of the conclusions it reached. (Minn. Stat. ß13D.05 subd.3). In other words, the board can discuss any aspect of the employees performance freely, without the media or public present. But after the evaluation is completed, the board is required to offer a summary that gives the public a clear picture of the employeeís performance. With rights come responsibilities. The board had a right to close the evaluation meeting, and a responsibility to tell the public what its conclusions were. It exercised its right, but did not live up to its responsibility.

People have asked why we are focusing on this particular evaluation. It is because the evaluation was held in a closed meeting. Other evaluations are handled differently and are not subject to the same requirements. It is the closed meeting aspect that makes this situation unique.

We have raised objections to the board regarding the two closed meetings it has had. We have written editorials. We have had our lawyer write letters. We have brought to the boardís attention an opinion by the Commissioner of Administration regarding a similar situation in St. Francis, Minnesota, in which the board held a closed meeting to evaluate a superintendent and later released a statement that the Anoka County Union felt was inadequate. The commission agreed, and the board later released an adequate summary.

When the second closed meeting was held, we reminded the board of its obligation to provide a summary of the evaluation. It issued a statement which read, ìThe Board met in closed session from 10:15 p.m. to 12:20 a.m. on Tuesday, April 2, 2002, to review the performance evaluation of Superintendent Lingen. As a result of that review, strengths were noted and areas of improvement were defined. The board developed goals regarding communication and leadership.î

Again, we objected that this statement was not a proper summary, and we requested our own opinion from the Minnesota Department of Administration, a state agency that interprets data practices issues. The Commissioner of Administration agreed that the board did not respond properly to our request. In that opinion, the board was given an opportunity to present its side of the issue, and those issues were addressed in the opinion. (A copy of the opinion, and the complaint against the school board, may be inspected at The Argus office).

Again, the board refused to offer a summary. The only option left, besides dropping the matter, was litigation.

It is especially disturbing to us that the board failed to follow the law on two occasions, and weíve never heard a good explanation why.

Some people may wonder why it even matters. After all, the superintendent is leaving for another job this week. We simply believe that our school board members should follow the law. We donít intend to let this go by simply because the superintendent is leaving. We will have another superintendent, and the board may decide to hold another closed session to evaluate him or her. Or, it may decide to evaluate another employee in the same manner. The public has a right to know the results of any evaluation the board conducts in private, and the board has a responsibility to provide it. The main purpose of the newspaper is to hold government accountable, and that is what we are doing.

If you have any questions on the lawsuit, please call The Argus at 724-3475.

Jane Palen, Managing editor

Top of Page