GREENWOOD TWP- In a short and contentious special meeting last Thursday, the Greenwood Town Board on a split vote rescinded their adoption of the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act (MGDPA) that was approved at the May meeting.
The unanimous vote by the board in May to accept the act would possibly have brought an end to a history of allegations of secrecy of township officials refusing open public access to township records. While Thursday’s special meeting agenda provided no opportunity for public comment, it was clear at the outset of the meeting that many present feared repeal of the action would lead to renewed resistance of transparency in township operations.
Board chair Lois Roskoski opened the meeting with a lengthy prepared statement delineating the rationale for repealing acceptance of the Data Practices Act, noting that repeal had been recommended by both Minnesota Association of Townships attorney Steve Fenske and township attorney Mike Couri. Language in Roskoski’s statement reflected language from an MAT document on MGDPA describing in part why smaller townships outside the Twin Cities metro area such as Greenwood are not automatically covered by the act.
Roskoski highlighted the challenges of properly administering the act, citing the task of appropriately classifying data as an example.
“The classification process is complex and time consuming, usually requiring the help of the town attorney or a well-trained responsible authority or other experienced consultants or employees,” Roskoski said, quoting directly from the MAT document. “The association strongly recommends that townships do not attempt government data practice act compliance without experienced professional help. Townships should consult their attorney before adopting any model policy as it may not be appropriate for the township’s need without modification. A town that adopts any of the model policies published by the State must notify the Data Practices Office of the town’s action.”
Roskoski pointed out additional challenges dealing with time needed to fulfill data requests, supervising review of data by individuals, and costs to the township.
Roskoski also emphasized that by adopting the MGDPA the township would subject itself to significant liability in the event of alleged violations.
“The Data Practices Act imposes both civil and criminal penalties for violations of its requirements,” Roskoski said. “A responsible authority or township which violates the Data Practices Act is liable to a person who suffers any damage because of the violation. If the responsible authority or township willfully violates the Data Practices Act, the township is also subject to punitive damages between $1,000 to $15,000 for each violation. The Data Practices Act includes possible criminal penalties for a person who violates the Data Practices Act. The criminal penalty is deemed a misdemeanor offense which carries the possibility of applying up to $1,000 and up to 90 days in jail.”
Acceptance of such liability risk could affect the township’s insurance coverage through the MAT Insurance Trust, and by extension could have a ripple effect on other trust members as well, Roskoski argued.
The primary reason for passing board member John Bassing’s motion to adopt the MGDPA in May was the assertion that compliance was necessary for certain grants, Roskoski said. She indicated that the board could selectively adopt the MGDPA for only those grants that require it without having the act adopted for the entirety of township operations.
After Roskoski made the motion to rescind the MGDPA, board member John Bassing prefaced his remarks by saying that reconsideration of an item already passed by the board would need a two-thirds majority vote to pass.
“The MAT has constantly fought this because they don’t want anybody complaining about them doing it,” Bassing said. “If the little town of Orr at 214 people can do this, we can do this. And we are doing this. A court case came before Greenwood Township where we had to comply, so we have done it. We have information that’s pertinent to this and we will have to follow it.”
“I’m not saying we’re not going to provide information because we’re not going to follow this monstrosity of a law that is this Data Practices Act,” Roskoski replied. “Our attorney Mike Couri has recommended that we rescind this immediately.”
“No surprise to me,” Bassing countered. ‘He’s the one that came up with the 12-step information request system where nobody could get any information. In fact, one of our citizens was told that he couldn’t even get the weather.”
Bassing also amplified an allegation that the special meeting itself did not comply with the Open Meetings law.
“This is the gold standard of transparency, and you folks ran on transparency,” he said. “This is the little bit hard part about transparency. You’re using a violation of the Open Meetings law to knock out transparency – that’s what this is all about.”
“I don’t agree – I think we’re being very transparent,” Roskoski replied.
Board member Rick Stoehr reacted to Roskoski’s comment.
“This is a violation of transparency, it certainly is,” he said. “People should be able to ask for that information.”
“They can ask, Rick, and we will provide it. We have nothing to hide,” Roskoski replied.
“I’m not so sure that you’re not trying to hide something,” Stoehr retorted.
“What does that mean, Mr. Stoehr?” Roskoski said. She continued, “Are you accusing me …” before Stoehr cut her off.
“It was said right away at these meetings that there’s things wrong here,” he said. “There’s money missing and there were other accusations made.”
At that point Roskoski called for a vote. In a roll call, Roskoski, Paul Skubic, and Craig Gilbert voted to rescind the MGDPA, and Bassing and Stoehr voted no.
After Roskoski declared that the motion had passed, Bassing immediately raised the procedural issue of needing a two-thirds majority.
“Not according to our attorney,” Roskoski said.
The meeting then adjourned.