Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Records And Personnel topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents raise concerns about mailed personnel-related packets; council cites Minnesota data-practices limits
Summary
Two residents told the Moose Lake City Council they received packets they described as defamatory about a city employee; city staff said personnel matters are private under the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act and directed requesters to submit formal data requests.
Moose Lake — Two residents used the public-comment portion of the March 12 city council meeting to raise questions about packets they said were mailed to residents that reference a city employee.
Tammy Gus told the council she had filed a formal complaint and said "defamation of character packets" were being mailed by "one of your city employees." The chair and staff repeatedly interrupted to caution that personnel matters and private data are governed by state law. The chair cited the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act and instructed Gus to keep remarks close to "the decision administered."
Renee Gaffney said she had received one packet and that local businesses and customers in her neighborhood had received others. She asked who had access to the information, who printed and mailed the packets, whether the city paid for any investigation and whether the material was public. Gaffney said she was "more like questions than accusations" but asked whether the packet distribution might be retaliation.
City staff responded that the City has fulfilled its obligations "under the Data Practices Act" and that redactions were made by the city attorney "with facilitation of city process." Staff said they had not provided details of internal investigative work in open session and advised that anyone seeking additional documents should submit a formal public-data request. "Anything that the City can provide and is legally obligated to provide, they will," a staff member said.
The council did not discuss investigative details at the meeting; staff said additional complaints or documents could be submitted to the city administrator and that some information must remain confidential in open meeting under Minn. Stat. 13.43, subd. 4.
