1-0205-15024-2

STATE OF MINNESOTA

OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION

In the Matter of the Appeal of the Determination of the Responsible Authority for Independent School District No. 273, Edina, that Certain Data Concerning Frank and Marcia Hinds are Accurate and/or Complete.

FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDED ORDER

 

This matter is before Administrative Law Judge George A. Beck (ALJ) on written submissions filed by the parties.  The parties waived their right to an oral hearing on this matter, and instead agreed to allow the ALJ to decide the case based on their written submissions, the documents in the file, and the tape recording of the voice mail message at issue.  The record closed with the parties’ filing of response submissions on October 18, 2002.

Paul C. Ratwick, Esq., Ratwick, Roszak & Maloney, P.A., 730 Second Avenue South, Suite 300, Minneapolis, MN 55402, represented Independent School District No. 273, Edina (“District”) and its Superintendent, Dr. Kenneth Dragseth.  Frank and Marcia Hinds, 6133 Sherman Circle, Edina, MN 55463, represented themselves.

NOTICE

This report is a recommendation only, not a final decision.  The final decision will be made by the Commissioner of Administration.  Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 14.61 the final decision of the Commissioner of Administration shall not be made until this Report has been made available to the parties to the proceeding for at least ten days, and an opportunity has been afforded to each party adversely affected to file exceptions and present arguments to the Commissioner.  Exceptions to this Recommended Order, if any, shall be filed with David Fisher, Commissioner of Administration, 658 Cedar St., Suite 305A, St. Paul, MN 55155.

            If the Commissioner fails to issue a final decision within 90 days of the close of the record, this report will constitute the final agency decision under Minn. Stat. § 14.62, subd. 2a.  The record closes upon the filing of exceptions to the report and the presentation of argument to the Commissioner, or upon the expiration of the deadline for doing so.  The Commissioner must notify the parties and the Administrative Law Judge of the date on which the record closes.

 

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE

Whether the data challenged by Frank and Marcia Hinds are accurate and/or complete within the meaning of Minnesota Government Data Practices Act.[1]

Based upon all of the files, records and proceedings herein, the Administrative Law Judge makes the following:

FINDINGS OF FACT

1.            Dr. Kenneth Dragseth is the Superintendent of Independent School District No. 273, Edina (“District”).

2.            Frank and Marcia Hinds are residents of Edina, and their two children attend schools in the District.  Their daughter is a senior this fall and their son is in the 8^th grade.  The Hinds have been active in their childrens’ education.

3.            The Hinds have a Halloween tradition of placing mock tombstones on their front lawn with the names of public persons, friends and/or neighbors.  The Hinds have in the past had tombstones bearing the names of Bill Clinton, Jesse Ventura and recently George W. Bush.  In October of 2000, the Hinds had a tombstone on their lawn with Dr. Dragseth’s name on it.  In 2001, the Hinds did not put up their annual Halloween display out of respect for the lives lost on September 11, 2001.

4.            At a November 27, 2000 joint meeting of the School Board and the Edina Human Relations Commission, Dr. Dragseth voiced concern over the Hinds’ Halloween display of mock tombstones bearing his name and the names of other District administrators and Board members.[2]  Following the joint meeting, the Commission held a regular meeting and discussed Dr. Dragseth’s concerns regarding the Hinds’ Halloween display.[3]

5.            In a letter dated December 20, 2000, Betsy Flaten, Chair of the Edina Human Relations Commission, notified Dr. Dragseth that, while the Hinds’ Halloween display may be objectionable, the Commission did not believe it amounted to a hate/bias crime over which the Commission had jurisdiction.[4]

6.            On or about December 10, 2001, the Edina School Board approved a 5 percent salary increase for Dr. Dragseth.[5] 

7.            On or about December 19, 2001, a Letter to the Editor from the Hinds was published in the Star Tribune newspaper.  In the letter, the Hinds criticized Dr. Dragseth’s 5 percent salary increase given the District’s financial constraints and school budget cuts.  The Hinds stated that at the last school board meeting, Superintendent Dragseth “recommended and received a 5 percent salary increase” and then sent a letter to staff “the following day” asking each school to cut its budget by 4 percent.[6]

8.            Contrary to what was stated in the Hinds’ letter, Dr. Dragseth did not send a letter to District staff asking them to cut their budgets by 4 percent the day after his salary increase was approved.  Rather, staff was informed of the District’s financial situation in a District-wide email sent on December 3, 2001.[7]

9.            On the morning of December 21, 2001, Dr. Dragseth sent two voicemail messages to District teaching staff.  In the first voicemail message, Dr. Dragseth referred to the Hinds’ letter to the Star Tribune and to their statement that he had recommended a 5 percent salary increase for himself.  Dr. Dragseth stated that he had simply negotiated with the Board and that the Board had recommended that he receive a 5 percent salary increase.  Dr. Dragseth further stated that his total compensation package amounted to about a 4.98 percent increase. 

10.            In his second voicemail message to District teaching staff, Dr. Dragseth again addressed the Hinds’ letter in the Star Tribune and stated in part:

“First of all, Marcia and Frank Hinds have been an antagonist of mine, ah, ever since I became superintendent.  For some reason, ah, they just do not like me, and I guess that’s up to them.  However, they’re the same people who up until we filed a complaint with the Edina Human Relations Committee the administration, SAC[8] did, ah, put tombstones on their lawns, ah, with our names on them, and also a Board member’s.”[9]

11.            On December 26, 2001, a letter to the Editor from the Hinds was published in the Edina Sun, a local community newspaper.[10]  This letter was similar to the one published in the Star Tribune.

12.            Dr. Dragseth is the District’s “responsible authority” for data practices.[11]  As the responsible authority, Dr. Dragseth, is responsible for the collection, use and dissemination of data.

13.            By letter dated February 4, 2002, the Hinds challenged the accuracy and/or completeness of the District’s data contained in Dr. Dragseth’s second voicemail message of December 21, 2001.[12]  The letter was addressed to Dr. Dragseth in his official capacity as the responsible authority for District data.  The Hinds noted that, contrary to the voicemail message, no formal complaint had been filed with the Edina Human Relations Commission.  The Hinds further noted that they had discontinued their annual Halloween display in October 2001 out of respect for the events of September 11^th and not due to the filing of any complaint as implied by Dr. Dragseth.[13]

14.            In a letter dated February 5, 2002, Sharon Ming, Chair of the Edina Human Relations Commission, confirmed that the Commission never received a formal written complaint from Dr. Dragseth regarding the Hinds’ Halloween display.[14]

15.            In a letter dated February 21, 2002, Dr. Dragseth, in his official capacity as the District’s responsible authority for data, notified the Hinds that he had determined the challenged data to be neither inaccurate nor incomplete.  Dr. Dragseth concluded that there was no basis for modifying or correcting the data.[15]

16.            On March 24, 2002, the Hinds appealed the District’s determination of their challenge to the accuracy and/or completeness of the voicemail data to the Department of Administration’s Information Policy Analysis Division.[16]

17.            On August 12, 2002, the Department of Administration served and filed a Notice of and Order for Hearing in this matter.  A contested case hearing was scheduled for October 8, 2002.  The parties thereafter agreed to waive the hearing and have the matter be determined based on their written submissions and the documents in the record.

Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact, the Administrative Law Judge makes the following:

CONCLUSIONS

            1.            Minnesota law[17] gives the Commissioner of Administration and the Administrative Law Judge authority to consider and rule on the issues in this contested case proceeding.

            2.            The notice of and order for hearing was proper in all respects and the Department of Administration has complied with all substantive and procedural requirements for maintaining this administrative contested case proceeding.

3            The District is a political subdivision of the State and is subject to the provisions of the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act.[18]

4            Frank and Marcia Hinds are the subjects of data on individuals that is being maintained by Independent School District No. 273, Edina (“District”).[19]

5.                 The Data Practices Act defines “data on individuals” as:

“all government data in which any individual is or can be identified as the subject of that data, unless the appearance of the name or other identifying data can be clearly demonstrated to be only incidental to the data and the data are not accessed by the name or other identifying data of any individual.”

6.            The Data Practices Act provides that individuals may contest the accuracy or completeness of data relating to them with the public authority responsible for maintaining that data.  If the responsible authority declines to correct data about which there is a dispute, individuals may then appeal that decision in a contested case proceeding under the Administrative Procedure Act.[20]

            7.            Data on individuals that have been successfully challenged by an individual must be completed, corrected, or destroyed by the state agency or political subdivision.[21]

            8.            Under the Data Practices Act, “accurate” means that the data in question is reasonably correct and free from error.[22]

            9.            Under the Data Practices Act, “complete” means that the data in question reasonably reflects the history of an individual’s transactions with the particular entity.  Omissions in an individual’s history that placed the individual in a false light shall not be permitted.[23]

            10.            The individual(s) filing an appeal has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the data is not accurate or complete.[24]

11.            The voicemail message challenged by Frank and Marcia Hinds was not reasonably correct and free from error and did not reasonably reflect the history of the Hinds’ transactions with Dr. Dragseth or the District.

12.            Frank and Marica Hinds have proved by a preponderance of the evidence that the data in question is not accurate or complete. 

13.            The Memorandum that follows explains the reasons for these Conclusions and is incorporated into the Conclusions.

            Based upon these Conclusions, the Administrative Law Judge makes the following:

 

RECOMMENDATION

IT IS RESPECTFULLY RECOMMENDED: that the Commissioner of Administration issue an Order (1) granting the appeal of Frank and Marcia Hinds from the determination of the responsible authority for Independent School District No. 273, Edina, that certain data about them are not accurate or complete, and (2) directing Dr. Dragseth to send the proposed voicemail message set out in the attached Memorandum to all District teaching staff.

Dated this 25^th  day of October, 2002.

      S/ George A. Beck

_______________________________

                                                                                    George A. Beck

                                                                                    Administrative Law Judge

 

NOTICE

Pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 14.62, subd. 1, the agency is required to serve its final decision upon each party and the Administrative Law Judge by first class mail.

MEMORANDUM

This case involves a challenge to the accuracy and completeness of a voicemail message sent by the Superintendent of the Edina School District to the District’s teaching staff.  Under the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, an individual who is the subject of government data has the right to contest the accuracy or completeness of that data.  The Edina School District is a political subdivision and is subject to the provisions of the Data Practices Act.[25]  Frank and Marcia Hinds are challenging the accuracy and completeness of a voicemail message that Dr. Kenneth Dragseth sent to District teachers on December 21, 2001.  The portion of the message contested by the Hinds is as follows:

“First of all, Marcia and Frank Hinds have been an antagonist of mine, ah, ever since I became superintendent.  For some reason, ah, they just do not like me, and I guess that’s up to them.  However, they’re the same people who up until we filed a complaint with the Edina Human Relations Committee the administration, SAC did, ah, put tombstones on their lawns, ah, with our names on them, and also a Board member’s.”

The Hinds argue first that Dr. Dragseth’s message is inaccurate because no complaint was ever filed with the Edina Human Relations Commission by Dr. Dragseth or by the District administration.  The Hinds contend further that Dr. Dragseth’s message implies inaccurately that, as a result of his complaint, the Hinds discontinued their Halloween display.  The Hinds argue that this implication suggests inaccurately that the Hinds did something wrong or that they were legally prohibited from continuing their Halloween display.  Contrary to Dr. Dragseth’s implication, the Hinds maintain that they discontinued their Halloween display in 2001 only out of respect for the events of September 11, 2001.  The Hinds assert also that Dr. Dragseth’s message is incomplete because he did not explain that the tombstones are part of the Hinds’ annual Halloween display and that the Hinds place several mock tombstones of politicians, celebrities, friends and neighbors on their lawn.  By failing to give the Halloween context for the tombstone display, the Hinds argue that Dr. Dragseth portrayed the Hinds as “crazies”.  Finally, the Hinds argue that Dr. Dragseth’s statement in his first voicemail message that his total compensation package reflected an increase of about 4.98 percent is inaccurate.  According to the Hinds, the correct amount of his salary increase is 5.5 percent.

The Hinds propose that the District correct the inaccurate and incomplete data by requiring Dr. Dragseth to send a new voicemail to District teaching staff stating the following: (1) that the correct amount of his compensation package is 5.5% and not 4.98%; (2) that neither he nor SAC filed a complaint with the Edina Human Relations Commission; (3) that the Hinds put tombstones on their lawn as part of a Halloween display poking fun at political figures and celebrities, and that the tombstone with Dr. Dragseth’s name was one of about 20 that year; (4) that the only reason the Hinds did not put up their tombstone display in October 2001 was out of respect for those who died on September 11^th; and (5) that, although the Hinds disagree with some of Dr. Dragseth’s actions as Superintendent, this is not proof that they are antagonists of Dr. Dragseth or that they do not like him.  The Hinds further request that the School Board place a copy of their March 24, 2002 appeal letter to the Commissioner of Administration in Dr. Dragseth’s personal file, and that Dr. Dragseth issue to them a letter of apology. 

The District argues that Dr. Dragseth’s voice mail was accurate and complete within the meaning of the Act and that there is no need for its modification.  First, the District asserts that Dr. Dragseth did complain about the Hines’ Halloween display at a joint meeting with the Edina Human Relations Commission and the School Board.  The District points out that the February 5, 2002 letter from the Commission Chair to the Hinds corroborates Dr. Dragseth’s statement that a complaint was made.  Although the Commission informed the Hinds that no “formal written complaint“ from Dr. Dragseth had been received, the Commission confirmed that the issue of the Hinds’ Halloween tombstone display was discussed at a meeting and that the Commission determined that it was without authority to get involved in the matter.  The District contends that the Commission’s letter is consistent with Dr. Dragseth’s statement that a complaint was filed and renders Dr. Dragseth’s statement “reasonably correct”. 

With respect to the Hinds’ challenge that the voicemail is not complete because it failed to provide the context for the tombstone display, the District argues that Dr. Dragseth mentioned the tombstones to illustrate the antagonism the Hinds have for him.  And because the Hinds admit to having an annual tombstone display and admit to having placed a tombstone on their lawn with Dr. Dragseth’s name on it, the District contends that no supplementation of the voicemail is needed.  Finally, as to the Hinds’ claim that Dr. Dragseth’s message implies inaccurately that they were stopped from erecting their Halloween display as a result of his complaint, the District asserts that Dr. Dragseth stated accurately in his message that up until his complaint, the Hinds erected a tombstone display.  The District points out that Dr. Dragseth did not know and did not state the reasons for the Hinds’ decision not to erect their annual tombstone display in 2001.  But, because the tombstones were not erected in 2001 after Dr. Dragseth’s complained about them to the Edina Human Relations Commission, the Department maintains that Dr. Dragseth’s message was accurate and complete.

“Accurate” is defined in rule as meaning that “the data in question is reasonably correct and free from error.”  “Complete” is defined to mean that the data in question reasonably reflects the history of an individual’s transactions with the particular entity.  Omissions in an individual’s history that placed the individual in a false light shall not be permitted.[26]  The Hinds have the burden of proof to show that it is more likely than not that the challenged data is not accurate and/or not complete.

After reviewing the record and written submissions of the parties, the Administrative Law Judge concludes that Dr. Dragseth’s second voicemail message of December 21, 2001 was inaccurate and incomplete.  Dr. Dragseth failed to give the Halloween context of the Hinds’ tombstone display, which placed the Hinds in a negative and false light.  In addition, Dr. Dragseth implied incorrectly that the Hinds stopped displaying the tombstones as a result of a complaint he or the District administration filed with the Edina Human Relations Commission.  The ALJ is persuaded that such an implication suggests that the Hinds did something improper or illegal.  This message was sent to staff who were teaching or otherwise interacting with the Hinds’ two children.  The ALJ is not persuaded, however, that Dr. Dragseth’s statement that a “complaint was filed” with the Edina Human Relations Commission is inaccurate within the meaning of the Act.  The fact that Dr. Dragseth complained about the Hinds’ tombstone display at a meeting with the Commission makes his statement “reasonably correct” and accurate under the Act. 

To correct the data challenged by the Hinds, the ALJ recommends that the Commissioner require Dr. Dragseth to issue the following voicemail message to all District teaching staff:

A year ago, I sent you a voicemail that referred to Frank and Marcia Hinds, their letter to the Star Tribune, and their yard display of mock tombstones bearing my name and the name of a Board member.  In my voicemail, I failed to make clear that the mock tombstones were part of the Hinds’ annual Halloween display.  I also inaccurately implied that a complaint filed with the Edina Human Relations Commission caused the Hinds to discontinue their tombstone display.  In fact, my verbal complaint about the Hinds’ Halloween display was not acted upon by the Commission and the Hinds only discontinued their display last year out of respect for the events of September 11^th.  This voicemail settles a data practices appeal made by Mr. and Mrs. Hinds.

The Hinds have also requested that Dr. Dragseth be required to correct the amount of his stated salary increase from 4.98 percent to 5.5 percent.  Nothing in the Data Practices Act, however, gives the Hinds the right to correct data of which they are not the subjects.  Instead, the Act allows individual subjects of data to contest the accuracy and completeness of data that identifies them as the subject.[27]  “Data on individuals” is defined as “all government data in which any individual is or can be identified as the subject of the data”.[28]  Because the Hinds are not the subjects of Dr. Dragseth’s statement regarding his compensation package, they do not have standing to challenge the accuracy of this statement.[29]  The Hinds’ request that Dr. Dragseth issue a statement correcting the amount of his salary increase is denied.

Likewise, nothing in the Act provides for letters of apology to be issued or for documentation to be placed in personnel files.  Instead, under the Act,[30] data on individuals that have been successfully challenged must be “completed, corrected or destroyed” by the state agency or political subdivision involved.  Here, the District is required only to correct the data that has been found to be inaccurate and complete.  Thus, the Hinds’ request that a copy of their letter to the Commissioner of Administration be placed in Dr. Dragseth’s personnel file, as well as their request for a letter of apology from Dr. Dragseth must be denied.

G.A.B.