Caledonia Argus

Judgeís ruling favors newspaper in lawsuit

Posted: 4/1/03

by Andrew Miller
Argus News Reporter

A District Court judge ruled on March 27 that the ISD #299 Board of Education failed to provide a proper summary of its conclusions regarding the evaluation of Superintendent Percy Lingen in April 2002.

Judge James Fabian ordered that, in the case of The Caledonia Argus versus the ISD #299 Board of Education, the school board shall provide the information The Argus sought regarding Lingenís evaluation, but denied a motion requiring that the school board pay The Argusí attorney fees.

The Argus filed the lawsuit after the school board closed a meeting last April to evaluate Lingen. Minnesota Open Meeting Law requires that when a school board closes a meeting to evaluate personnel, it is required to release a summary of its conclusions at its next open meeting. The school board summarized its evaluation of Lingen by stating, ìAs a result of the review, strengths were noted and areas of improvement were defined. The board developed goals regarding communication and leadership.î

The school board was advised by the Minnesota School Board Association not to include additional details in its summary because releasing additional information would violate the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act.

Argus Managing Editor Jane Palen contended that the boardís statement was not an adequate summary, and The Argus sought an advisory opinion from the Minnesota Commissioner of Administration, who concluded that the boardís statement was not in compliance with Open Meeting Law. After receiving the advisory opinion, the board did not release any additional information regarding Lingenís evaluation, and The Argus filed a lawsuit in July, 2002.

A January 16 hearing before Fabian in the Houston County Courthouse saw requests for summary judgments from both parties. School board attorney Stephen Anderson of Ratwick, Roszak, and Maloney, Minneapolis, argued that the board, in issuing its statement, had balanced concerns for open meeting laws with concerns about releasing private information regarding Lingen, and that the statement issued had been ìan honest, good faith effort to comply with open meeting law.î

The Argusí attorney, Mark Anfinson of the Minnesota Newspaper Association, argued that ìwhat the school board issued is not a summary by any standard,î and noted that the newspaper ìnever would have commenced litigationî had some good faith summary been issued by the school board. Anfinson added that ìa meaningful summary of conclusions should cover the specific performance items that have been addressed, as well as determinations that have been made during the closed meeting.î

In his opinion issued March 27, Fabian concluded that the board could have provided a more detailed summary of Lingenís evaluation while still protecting her rights under the Minnesota Data Practices Act.

Fabian stated, ìTo tell the public that strengths and areas of improvement were discussed tells them nothing. That is what anyone would expect to occur at an evaluation. The public has a sincere interest in knowing what issues may be perceived by the board... at the very least, they should be entitled to know what is being discussed.î

He added, ìIndividuals in the position held by Superintendent Lingen are under the watchful eye of the general public as well as the board members. A person accepting such a position must realize that issues regarding their strengths and need for improvement will be part of an evaluation and should be shared with the general public.

ìAdditionally, for the general public to elect school board members who will effectively run the affairs of the school, the public must know with more certainty what those board members see as strengths and weaknesses of the leaders they hire to oversee the operations of the school.î

Though Fabian found that the school board failed to provide a proper summary and ordered the board to provide the information sought by The Argus, he did not impose sanctions against the board.

He stated, ìThis Court finds that awarding such sanctions is at this time inappropriate. The board members spend significant time providing a great service to their community,î and open meeting laws mandate that no monetary penalties or attorney fees may be awarded against a member of a public body unless there was a specific intent to violate the laws. The school board relied on the Minnesota School Board Association for advice in issuing their statement, and as such, they were ìfaced with a delicate balancing act and they did what they felt compelled to do.î

Fabian added that it is possible for the board to comply with both Open Meeting Law and the Data Practices Act, and to issue a summary of Lingenís evaluation providing information above and beyond what was initially released. However, ìit is impossible for the Court to provide an example of what a sufficient summary would constitute,î but the board must at the very least provide the strengths and areas of improvement discussed in Lingenís evaluation.

Though he didnít impose civil penaltiesñ board members faced fines of $300 apieceñ Fabian stated that future violations of this kind by the board would likely result in sanctions.

Top of Page