Laserfiche WebLink
I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />i <br /> <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br /> <br />Court held that there was no final disposition of the case, <br />although the city council had made its final decision, because the <br />police chief had the opportunity to use the Veteran's Preference <br />procedure. The Court held that this was true even though it would <br />have been possible that the report would never be released if the <br />police chief and the city council arrived at a settlement of the <br />matter. Therefore the portion of the meeting which discussed the <br />contents of the report were properly closed. However the Minnesota <br />Supreme Court held that the meeting should have been open during <br />the portion of the meeting that did not involve discussions of the <br />content of the report. The portion of the meeting that should have <br />remained open included discussions concerning: the fact that the <br />report existed; the fact that the city council had considered the <br />report; the role the report played in the decision to terminate the <br />police chief; and the terms of any settlement. <br /> <br /> The recent amendments to the Government Data Practices Act <br />were designed to alter the result in the Annandale decision. The <br />statutory amendment interprets the term "final disposition" as a <br />final decision. This interpretation means that the investigative <br />report in Annandale would have become public following the city <br />council's final decision even though the police chief had access <br />to the Veteran's Preference procedure. <br /> <br /> In addition, the following data on current or former <br />applicants is public: <br /> <br /> veteran status; relevant test scores; rank on eligible <br /> job list; job history; education and training; and work <br /> <br /> <br />