2006_1031_Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

i�RIE�i the pooi of applicants to 1�, editor of �� Free fi,�.�� . Mankato mayoi� Nancy North Mankato city atto�. ;d that the names of the closed as soon as the city , interview them. She also iy interviews be conducted r� told Flemming that the duct one-on-one incervievvs open to the public. i a special meeting on Jan- ring which it reviewed the 11 candidates and �e[ected ica�ts to interview. The � to the public. but the •�at the names of the appii- neeting, a t'epo2�ter for 2'he sted the names of the five �I:n�l7 refused, cat��ing the � would be diselo.ed only I to be inten•ie�ced_ �'h� �didates �rere con- ed to intet�zew for �rr names were publicly an- day. 1996, the council xnembers neous, serial one-on-one in- �t` the five finalists so that � interviewed separately by �er, The one-on-one inter- �pen to the public or the ie interviews, the council h together but did not �- ,vs. Following lunch, the public interviews. Knt�t- e asked different questions f�i�'Fh than at the private ic interviews, the council �traw vote by writing on a e names of their top 9�=�� The result of the straw = public at the time. hut it �e council meeting minutes. ble at a later date. �� hree candidates remained, mbers ranked these three. �to hue the favored mous roll call �P' hiring the top candidate. MAN�CAi'� FREE PRESS �. CITY OF N. MANKATO Minn. 2�� CitewsSb3 N�W.Id 29l (Minn.App. 19971 Appellant commenced this action, claiming E'I`lhe following personnel data on current .h$� respondents violated the Government and former applicants for employment by a Data Practices ��: and the Open Meeting '' " political subdivision **'` is public: ��u•. Appellant sought a declaratory judg- veteran status; relevant test scores; rank ment. Both sides moved for summary judg- on eligible list; job history; education and ment, which the district court granted in training; and work availability. Names of {acpr of respondents on the three issues per- applicants shall be private data except pnent to this appeal. �` '�` when applicants are considered by the appointing authority to be finalists ISSUES for a position in public employment. For purposes of this subdiuision, "�na�- 1. Did respondents violate the Govern- ment Data Practices Act by refusing to pro- vide the names of the job finalists before the candidates had agreed to be interview�d? •?, Did respondents violate the Open �]ee�ing Law by conducting serial one-on-one interviews with the job finalists? �, Did respondents violate the Open �Ieetirtg Law by taking a written straw vote to narrow the field of candidates where the results of the straw vote were not made public until a later date? ANALYSIS On appeal from summary judgment, this court asks wh�I�T there are any genuine i�sues of material faet and whether the dis- � court erred in applying the law. Stale � f Cooper v, French 460 N.W.2d 2, 4(Minn- 199fJ1. The construction of a statute is a question of law and thus full}r revservabte by a1 appellate court. Hibbing �due. Ass'n v, Prcbiic �'�nplob�xe�i Relatian.s �r 369 �•��,:d 527, fi29 (Mann1995). I. [1] ;�p�� claims that under the Gov- ernment Data Practices Act, respondents nere obligated to identify the names of appli- cants for the city administrator job when the si'} council decided to invite the applicants ��r interviews. The C�overnrnent Data Prac- tices Act attempts "to reconcile an indivi8u- �� nght af privacy with the public's right to � fuLly informed about government opera- tions." Demers v. City � Min7ied�oolis, 486 �'h'..�� 828, 831 (Tu�inn.App.1992i. With re- '�� to information collected about appli- cants for public employment, the statute pro- �ides: ist" means on individual who is selected to be interviewed by the appointing au- thority prior to selection. Minn.Stat. $ 13.43, subd. 3 (199fi) (emphasis added). Respondents rely on the first sentence of the italicized language, which suggests that an appointing authority has discretion in de- ciding the time at which a candidate is a finalist. Appellant, on the other hand, lvgh- lights the next sentence, arguing that by defining "finalist" the legislature sought to limit a public body's discretion in deciding when a person becomes a finalist. Both sides raise legitimate concerns in their arguments interpreting Mir►n.Sta�. § 13.43, subd. 3. Respondents argue that many people, when applying for a position, do not want their present employer to know that they are considering seeking other em- ployment. Respondents further contend that a hiring process may be lengthy and an applicant has a right to privacy if the appli- cant decides he or she is no longer interested in the position. Appellant argues that if public bodies are given too much authority � decide when a candidate is a finalist, they could evade the purpose of the statute by inventing various conditions that must be met before an individualis considered a futal- ist. Because the italicized language has more than one reasonable interpretation, the stat- ute presents an ambiguity and is subject to the rules of statutory construction. See T'uma. v. Commissianer � Eca�. Sec., 386 N.VY2d 7U2, 706 (IVfinn1986) (statute is am- biguous if it has more than one reasonable interpretation and court must apply rules of construction); Waller v. Powers Dep'i Store, 343 PI.W,2d 6a5, 657 (11'Cinn.19$4} (statutory