Editorial: End the secrecy in public settlements

Count it as a partial victory: The state Department of Administration said this week that Burnsville school officials should not have blacked out parts of a $255,000 settlement agreement with a former employee.

News media organizations, including the Star Tribune, and outraged citizens had challenged the school district's decision to redact nine lines of a separation agreement with Tania Z. Chance, the former human-resources director, leaving taxpayers in the dark about the use of their dollars.

When tax dollars are used for settlement payouts, the public deserves to know why. Under existing data practices rules, that information is supposed to be disclosed when an agreement costs $10,000 or more.

Though legal interpretations have varied over the years, on Monday the Department of Administration reaffirmed the law. In a nonbinding ruling, the agency said that the Burnsville-Eagan-Savage district erred.

The advisory ruling sets an important precedent that school districts should follow. Acting in accordance with the opinion can protect districts from liability when they release the terms of separation agreements.

Though helpful, the advisory ruling doesn't go far enough to assure full disclosure. In the Burnsville case, the redacted language revealed that Chance had filed complaints against superintendent Randy Clegg with two state agencies.

Under terms of the settlement, Chance agreed to drop those complaints in return for the $255,000 payment and letters of recommendation. And both sides agreed not to talk about it.

A proposal to strengthen the state's Data Practices Act would fix that problem. Rep. Pam Myhra, R-Burnsville, has introduced a bill that would close loopholes and mandate that complete terms of agreements must be disclosed and specific reasons given for big payouts.

The bill also would require that the underlying data surrounding any investigation be disclosed for nearly all high-ranking public officials -- not just school administrators.

Some school boards and other public administrators argue that the secret separation agreements allow parties to resolve disputes before they turn into long, costly court battles. Such supporters defend withholding information as being financially responsible and protective of the public purse. Paying a few hundred thousand in a settlement is preferable to potentially spending much more later on, they say.

But even if a settlement is the best option, the public should know why. Government officials shouldn't be allowed to use taxpayer dollars to cover up either their own actions or those of their employees.

Myhra's bill passed in the House last week in a 130-0 vote. Senators are considering the companion bill this week and are reportedly working to change language that might require reports on every complaint against a school principal or administrator. A patch for that unintended potential consequence can be worked out in committee.

------