Caledonia Argus

Commissionerís opinion favors newspaper on question of superintendentís evaluation

Posted: 5/21/02

The Minnesota Commissioner of Administration has issued an advisory opinion that states that the ISD #299 School Board failed to respond properly to a request for information regarding its evaluation of Superintendent Percy Lingen.

The opinion was requested by The Argus through attorney Mark Anfinson of the Minnesota Newspaper Association. It concerns a closed meeting held by the school board on April 2, 2002, in which the superintendentís performance was evaluated. Minnesotaís Open Meeting law states that ìA public body may close a meeting to evaluate the performance of an individual who is subject to its authority..At its next open meeting, the public body shall summarize its conclusions regarding the evaluation.î

After the closed meeting, the board issued a statement that read, ì...as a result of that review, strengths were noted and areas of improvement were defined. The board developed goals regarding communication and leadership.î

After the release of the statement, Jane Palen, managing editor of The Argus, sent a letter to school board chair Cheryl Whitesitt stating the newspaperís position that the statement issued by the board did not meet the requirements of the law. Whitesitt responded that the board believed its statement was ìappropriate and in keeping with statutory requirements.î

In his opinion, Commissioner David F. Fisher wrote, ìGovernment entities seeing guidance in what to summarize can look to the language of the Open Meeting Law. Specifically, Chapter 13D directs a governing body to ìsummarize its conclusionsî regarding a personnel evaluation. How a public body approaches the evaluation will determine exactly which data it should summarize. The public body should carefully review the specific points it established in reaching a conclusion about the performance evaluation. Clearly, the language of the Open Meeting Law indicates that the governing body ought to summarize each salient point of the evaluation so that the public is given the opportunity to get the best possible sense of the performance-good, bad, or indifferent-of the public employee.î

On Monday, Whitesitt, who also received a copy of the opinion said the school board has contacted its representative in the Minnesota School Board Association and is awaiting direction.

This is the second instance in which the board held a closed meeting to evaluate the superintendent. The first was held in August of 2001. After that closed session, the board issued a statement which read, ìthe board completed the annual formal evaluation and it was shared with the superintendent.î The newspaper objected that the statement did not meet the requirements, and letters were sent to the board from Attorney Anfinson asking the board to provide the information. The board did not respond to the requests.

Palen explained that from the newspaperís standpoint, the issue is the closed meeting aspect of the evaluation.

ìIt doesnít matter who the board evaluated. What matters is that board members held a closed meeting to conduct the evaluation. Closing the meeting created an obligation on the part of the board to share its conclusions at its next meeting, but the board chose to ignore that obligation and deny the public that information.î

The advisory opinion is not legally binding on the school board. If the matter were to reach a court, however, the court must give deference to the opinion.

Top of Page