Attorney claims BP is violating state law in release of chief’s discipline

Blooming Prairie officials remain tightlipped about the circumstances surrounding discipline of the city’s police chief and refuse to release details despite state law that requires them to.
The Times has made at least three attempts in the past couple weeks for details regarding the basis for the discipline against Chief Greg Skillestad. One of those attempts took place Thursday morning during a meeting with City Administrator Andrew Langholz and City Attorney Jason Iacovino. In that meeting, both indicated the city is not releasing any details regarding Skillestad’s discipline. They also said the case is final unless Skillestad chooses to do something further with it.
On Friday, the Times made yet another written request to the city for the information. Iacovino replied that he would provide “a written explanation for our decision to not release that information in the coming days.”
Minnesota Statute 13.43 governs personnel data, which is explicitly for government data on individuals maintained because the individual is or was an employee with the government entity.
“The application of the statute seems very clear in this case,” said Mark Anfinson, a veteran media law attorney who is representing the Times in its quest to have the information released.
“Since the chief was disciplined, the city must not only provide access to the final disposition of the disciplinary action, but also to the specific reasons for the action and data documenting the basis of the action,” he said. 
If Skillestad’s performance review is the only data that documents the basis for the discipline, and if the review contains the specific reasons for the discipline, then disclosing that document would constitute full compliance with the statute, Anfinson said. Otherwise, he added, the additional information specified in the statute would also need to be provided.
Anfinson is widely considered an expert in First Amendment and information law in Minnesota. In fact, he has helped craft many of the open meeting and data privacy laws that exist today in the state.
The city’s refusal to release details about Skillestad’s discipline appears to be the second time city ofcials have violated state law over this particular issue.
The issue came to a boiling point at the Sept. 14 city council meeting when city leaders violated the state’s Open Meeting Law by holding a closed session to discuss discipline against Skillestad. The council failed to disclose what statute they were relying on to justify a closed session.
After the closed session, the council came back into regular session where members upheld Skillestad’s performance evaluation and reprimand. Council member Mary Kittelson tried to rescind the discipline, but her efort failed.
Skillestad attended the council meeting with his attorney, Richard Wylie, of Minneapolis. Wylie is a civil rights attorney.
Since the meeting, the Times has made several requests for the reasons the city has disciplined Skillestad. However, city leaders are adamant about not releasing anything further.
Skillestad declined to comment about the matter and referred all questions to his attorney. Wylie did not return a request for comment from the Times.
Langholz confirmed he alone did the chief’s performance evaluation as he does with all city department heads. The evaluation was completed in June and initially came before the council in July.