Support the Timberjay by making a donation.

Serving Northern St. Louis County, Minnesota

Judge to rule next week on Stauber emails

Felicity Bosk and Marshall Helmberger
Posted 10/26/18

DULUTH— A Kanabec County judge said he expects to rule by early next week whether St. Louis County must release emails and text messages between County Commissioner Pete Stauber and the National …

This item is available in full to subscribers.

Please log in to continue

Log in

Judge to rule next week on Stauber emails

Posted

DULUTH— A Kanabec County judge said he expects to rule by early next week whether St. Louis County must release emails and text messages between County Commissioner Pete Stauber and the National Republican Congressional Committee. The Republican Stauber is locked in a heated political contest with DFLer Joe Radinovich to replace Eighth District Congressman Rick Nolan.

The state’s Supreme Court asked Judge Stoney Hiljus to hear the case, which pits St. Louis County against the Minnesota DFL Party. The DFL filed suit Oct. 22, just days after the county rejected an Oct. 16 opinion by the Department of Administration that found that the emails and other communications were public data since Stauber used his official county email. Stauber’s use of his official email appears to be a violation of county policy, but county officials have indicated they don’t intend to investigate the matter.

In March, several newspapers, including the Star Tribune, submitted a data practice request for emails between Stauber and the NRCC. The Star Tribune later sought the advisory opinion from the Commissioner of Administration.

During oral argument held Friday, DFL attorney Christopher Stafford of Fredrikson and Byron contended that the approaching election made time of the essence and he urged the judge to order the immediate release of the communications, which he said were encompassed in 22 separate emails and an unspecified number of text messages.

Attorney Nick Campanario, who represented St. Louis County, told the judge that the county believes the Commissioner of Administration got it wrong and that the county is obligated to withhold the emails because state law makes communications between an elected official and an “individual” private data, unless one of the parties agree to the release. Stauber has, to date, refused to release the emails, despite numerous calls from a number of elected officials and newspapers to do so.

Stafford said that if the court accepted the county’s interpretation of state data practices law, virtually all communications with an elected official could be kept private, since almost all emails originate with an individual.

Stafford’s argument echoed the Oct. 16 opinion from the Commissioner of Administration, who indicated that the county was failing to recognize a legal distinction between the term “individual,” which applies only to naturally-born people, and “person,” which can also apply to corporations or organizations like the NRCC.

“Had the legislature intended to classify correspondence between elected officials and organizations as private under section 13.601, it would have used the term “person” instead of “individual,” wrote Commissioner Matthew Massman. “The legislature’s decision to use the term “individual” evidences an intent that correspondence between elected officials and organizations is not meant to be classified as private,” Massman concluded.

While the judge promised to decide the case before the election, it remains uncertain whether the emails will see the light of day before the polls open on Nov. 6. In response to a question from the judge, attorneys for both sides indicated that an appeal is possible, regardless of how the judge rules. That could easily forestall release of the emails until after the election.