School board censures member after outside investigation finds public disclosures about superintendent violated data-privacy and open-meeting rules

The Independent School District 624 school board voted to censure board member Dan Scar after reviewing an outside investigator’s report that found Scar publicly made evaluative and accusatory statements about Superintendent Kazmierczak and solicited votes outside open meetings, matters the district attorney said raised data-privacy and open‑meeting concerns.

District counsel summarized the complaint — filed March 3, 2026 — and the investigator’s findings in open session after Scar exercised his right to an open hearing. Counsel said the report documented statements and social‑media posts that relied on personnel data the district maintains about the superintendent and that those disclosures and the solicitation of an email vote raised liability under the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act and potential violations of the open meeting law.

Multiple board members described the conduct as outside acceptable practices for an elected official and urged a formal response to limit district liability and protect staff privacy. Board member Beloyed proposed a resolution that would publicly censure Scar, disavow his conduct (meaning the board would not defend or indemnify him for litigation arising from those statements), and warn that future similar conduct could lead to removal proceedings.

Scar disputed the allegations at the meeting, said he had requested transparency and an operational audit, and contended the complaint lacked specific factual detail; he also told the board he declined to participate in a full interview with the investigator because he said he had not been given sufficient particulars about the allegation. Counsel said the investigator provided evidence sources (including video and social posts) and that Scar had been notified that declining to be interviewed could limit his procedural rights to contest certain findings.

After debate and clerical edits to the drafted resolution, the board adopted the censure and disavowal by roll-call vote 5–1 (Scar opposed). The resolution states the board’s findings that Scar’s statements were evaluative in nature, relied on district personnel data about the superintendent, and solicited an email vote in a way counsel believed violated the open meeting law. The resolution places Scar on formal notice that repeated violations could lead the board to consider removal.

The resolution also directs that the board does not approve Scar’s statements as representing the school board and states that the board will not defend or indemnify him in litigation arising from the conduct described. Counsel advised the board that further public repetition of the same statements could increase the district’s legal exposure.

The board had earlier voted to clarify members’ status under the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act (see separate action), and that item was discussed in the same meeting as part of the broader review of policy and procedure.