Caledonia Argus

Court hears motions on Argus lawsuit

Posted: 1/21/03

by Andrew Miller
Argus News Reporter

A preliminary hearing on January 16 in the case of The Caledonia Argus versus the ISD #299 Board of Education saw both a motion for summary judgment from the plaintiff and a motion for dismissal from the defendant.

The dispute stems from a statement the school board issued after closing a meeting on April 2, 2002 to evaluate the performance of then-superintendent Percy Lingen. The statementread, ìAs a result of the review, strengths were noted and areas of improvement were defined. The board developed goals regarding communication and leadership.î

Argus Managing Editor Jane Palen contended that the statement was not an adequate summary. The newspaper then obtained an opinion from the Commissioner of Administration which supported its position. When the board did not release any further information, the paper filed a lawsuit in early July, 2002.

At the hearing on January 16, the school boardís attorney, Stephen Anderson of Ratwick, Roszak and Maloney, Minneapolis, made a motion for dismissal, stating that the school board, in issuing its statement, was balancing concerns for the open meeting law with concerns about releasing private information regarding Lingen. Privacy concerns of the superintendent as outlined in the stateís data practices act, he noted, were such that the school board felt it could not elaborate on the information released to The Argus.

The statement, Anderson added, was ìan honest, good faith effort to comply with open meeting law,î and there is no evidence to support the notion that the school board intentionally violated the open meeting law; since there is no basis to find an intentional violation, the plaintiffís charges should be dismissed, he argued.

The attorney for The Argus, Mark Anfinson of the Minnesota Newspaper Association, stated, ìWhat the school board issued is not a summary by any standard. I remain as stumped today as the first day Jane Palen called me that there remains a dispute.î

Anfinson commented that the defendantís argument is ìnon-existent,î and that, ìIf some sanctions and/or fees are not awarded, I can assure the court, the prospect youíll have compliance with these laws drops very low. If a citizen has to spend thousands of dollars to enforce the law, the law doesnít mean much.î

Before seeking litigation, Anfinson added, The Argus obtained an advisory opinion from the Minnesota Commissioner of Administration, who concluded that the school boardís statement did not constitute a satisfactory summary. After the advisory opinion was issued, Anfinson told the court, the school board did not provide any more information.

Anfinson stated that board members would have been completely protected from liability had they issued an adequate summary following the receipt of the commissionerís opinion.

ìFor what itís worth,î Anfinson said, ìthe newspaper never would have commenced this litigationî if some good faith summary would have been issued by the school board.

After hearing both the plaintiffís motion for summary judgment and the defendantís motion for dismissal, Judge James Fabian took the matter under advisement.

Top of Page