Tighten Minnesota disclosure law

  • Article by: EDITORIAL BOARD , Star Tribune
  • Updated: February 25, 2013 - 9:35 PM

Minnesota must put an end to secret settlements.

  • 8
  • Comments

  • Results per page:
  • 1 - 8 of 8
mmediaFeb. 25, 13 7:42 AM

Like CEO's with golden parachutes out of companies they ran into the ground, top level administrators will always find a way to be protected when they screw up, so good luck trying to obtain accountability. My gut feeling on the most recent case is an over-reaching abusive administrator didn't like the principal and the district paid for the latter's wish to remove an offending presence. It would have been cheaper to get rid of the top level administrator who lacks the ability to work through differences. Remember when leaders had "People Skills?" My kids district has lost over 500 students in the last 8 years, cut 25 teachers, but has not eliminated one administrative position. Why? Because board members truly feel we need them all. If a board member has been told the payout "is good" for the institution then it will get done - transparency or not.

14
1
dvsdan123Feb. 25, 13 7:50 AM

Where can I get a job that will pay me $225,000 to leave? Oh that's right, GOVERNMENT.

8
5
jackpine091Feb. 25, 13 9:58 AM

mmedia... you are absolutely correct. The confidentiality agreement is not to protect the principal who was removed, but to protect the superintendent who likes to act like a bully. She did the same thing in Bloomington. It's too bad that she has this much power. How is this in the best interest of kids?

12
0
eman2001Feb. 25, 1311:39 AM

I had to agree to one of these buyouts. It was a choice of paying for lengthy and costly litigation or just buy him out for a fixed amount. We chose to buy him out. It's employment law that seemed to be tilted in his favor that was the problem.

4
0
phatcatpatFeb. 26, 13 6:59 AM

The bottom line is this: We have a right to know why these people are receiving our tax dollars.

2
0
FrankLFeb. 26, 13 8:39 AM

Seems like a really simple rule to write. If you accept money beyond your normal salary, the reason for the payment must be disclosed. If you wish privacy, then don't accept the payment.

4
0
gandalf48Feb. 26, 13 9:06 AM

These are our public funds, I have no idea why our legislators can't simply pass a law that clearly states if you hand someone an amount of money over $100 then you must disclose why that payment was made and why that person is leaving. After all, if I can look up the salary of every teacher in Minnesota, what grades they teach and their education level I should be able to see why some administrator just left their job with a $100,000+ payment.

1
0
jdlellis1Feb. 28, 13 4:24 PM

It is an unholy alliance when legislators (pubilic employees) have and excuete legislation to hide/protect the actions of public employees. Individuals make a choice (not forced) to become a public employee and as such public employees serve at the private citizens. All information should be relased on public employees in all similar cases. This is kind of what a Representative Democracy is about!

0
0
  • 1 - 8 of 8

Comment on this story   |  

ADVERTISEMENT

  • about opinion

  • The Opinion section is produced by the Editorial Department to foster discussion about key issues. The Editorial Board represents the institutional voice of the Star Tribune and operates independently of the newsroom.

  • Submit a letter or commentary
Connect with twitterConnect with facebookConnect with Google+Connect with PinterestConnect with PinterestConnect with RssfeedConnect with email newsletters

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT