Final Investigation Summary - K. Hoefling - Redacted
Date: July 28, 2022
To: Tim Cruikshank, City Manager
Maria Cisneros, City Attorney
From: Surya Saxena
Greene Espel, PLLP
Re: Final Investigative Memorandum Regarding Allegations of Improper
Conduct and Minnesota Government Data Practices Act Violations by
Officer Kristen Hoefling
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
We recommend that the City of Golden Valley (the “City”) discipline Officer
Kristen Hoefling by terminating her employment. This recommendation is based
on our conclusions that:
1)Hoefling violated the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act
(“MGDPA”) by making and disseminating unauthorized recordings of
multiple employment-related meetings with City co-workers that
contained private personnel data, and by disseminating, causing the
publication of, and making personal use of said recordings.
2)Hoefling also violated the MGDPA by engaging in the unauthorized
collection of federal court documents involving a candidate to become
the next Golden Valley Police Chief and disseminating those materials.
3)Hoefling’s offensive conduct and comments also constituted violations
of the Professional Conduct Policy and the City’s Respectful Workplace
Policy.
4)Hoefling unjustifiably refused to participate in an employer-compelled
interview in connection with this investigation.
2
SCOPE AND METHOD OF INVESTIGATION
On March 15, 2022, the City Council approved the City’s engagement of
Greene Espel to conduct an investigation of multiple allegations.
Greene Espel was engaged in part to investigate a Human Resources
complaint alleging a “toxic and inappropriate work culture” and offensive conduct
by certain Golden Valley Police Officers, including Officer Hoefling. These
allegations were brought by City employee , the City’s
.
Greene Espel was further engaged in part to conduct an investigation
consistent with the City’s obligation under the MGDPA of whether Hoefling or
others engaged in the “unauthorized acquisition” of government data or caused a
data breach. Minn. Stat. §13.055, subd. 2.
Greene Espel conducted the requested investigation by reviewing:
1) Email collected from the City’s Microsoft Exchange journaled back-up
for:
a. Officer Hoefling’s City email address;
b. Former Officer ’s City email address; and
c. The email address “scanner@goldenvalleymn.gov”;
2) Cisco WebEx meeting attendance data;
3) Hoefling’s City internet browser history;
4) Publicly available information regarding Hoefling and others, including
on the Facebook social media platform; and
5) Recordings made by Kristen Hoefling, which were obtained both from
City servers and from an officer who received recordings from
Hoefling.
Greene Espel further interviewed the following individuals:
1) on March 31, 2022;
3
2) on April 14, 2022;
3) on June 13, 2022; and
4) on June 27, 2022.
Greene Espel repeatedly requested an interview with Officer Hoefling, but
Hoefling declined to be interviewed. On April 29, 2022, Greene Espel sent a letter
to Law Enforcement Labor Services (“LELS”) (which had agreed to accept
communications on Hoefling’s behalf) providing Hoefling with a complaint issued
pursuant to the Peace Officer Discipline’ Procedures Act (“PODPA”) and requesting
that Hoefling agree to participate in a voluntary interview in connection with this
investigation and in response to the PODPA complaint. See Minn. Stat. 626.89
subd. 5. On May 6, 2022, Attorney Mark Schneider, on behalf of LELS and Officer
Hoefling, sent a letter to Saxena stating as follows:
Given the application of PODPA and the commencement of an
internal affairs complaint against Officer Hoefling, I am writing
to inform you that Officer Hoefling is unable to appear for a
voluntary interview. If she is compelled to appear for an
interview and is provided the required Garrity
Advisory/Warning, Officer Hoefling would be able to participate
in an interview at that time.
Subsequently, on May 16, 2022, Saxena sent an email to Schneider stating “in
response to your letter dated May 6, 2022, the City will compel Kristen Hoefling to
be interviewed in connection with her PODPA complaint…[W]e will provide Officer
Hoefling with a Garrity advisory.”
Thereafter, during both phone conversations and in-person conversations,
Schneider informed Saxena that an attorney designated by LELS to represent
Officer Hoefling would contact Greene Espel to provide a response to the City’s
decision to compel the interview.
On July 8, 2022, Attorney Scott Higbee with LELS contacted Saxena by phone
to indicate he would be representing Officer Hoefling. That same day, Saxena
informed Higbee during a phone conversation that
, and therefore, that the City expected she would appear for
a mandatory interview in connection with the PODPA Complaint. Higbee indicated
he would get back to Saxena with a response.
8
Sturgis began scheduling the meeting during the pandemic to communicate with
officers regularly.
Hoefling recorded the April 15, 2021 meeting on her personal cell phone by
pointing the phone’s camera at an iPad that was used to log into the WebEx
meeting. Hoefling sent an email to some, but not all, Golden Valley Police Officers
on April 16, 2021 stating that she had recorded the meeting and had saved files
containing portions of the recording on the “G:” drive, a network location on the
City’s secure network accessible to employees within the Police Department:
12
13
In response to this post, on October 12, 2021 at 5:44 p.m., Staaf made the following
comment, publicly disclosing the existence of Hoefling’s recording of the April 15,
2021 meeting on the Police Department’s G: drive:
14
26
As the result of Hoefling’s deletion of the account (and likely individual
posts), posts and comments made by the screen name “Roni Macready” were not
available to Greene Espel as part of this investigation. However, Facebook posts
that mention “Roni Macready” remain visible on Facebook and strongly indicate
that Hoefling used that screenname and account to review and make posts
regarding the City’s search for a new police chief. Hoefling commented in a long
chain related to a February 19, 2022 post in the “Everything Golden Valley” group
regarding the identification of the finalists for the police chief position:
27
28
29
34
before their interview of , and suggested that “the timing and manner of
delivery [of the letter] was intimidating, provocative, and threatening.” The Mayor
was further quoted as stating that the City’s police department had a “toxic culture
of hostility, intimidation, paternalism and unfortunately racism” that had
“infected” the police chief selection process. The Mayor then apologized for his
March 1, 2022 comments on March 15, 2022.10
The timing of Hoefling’s receipt of may provide context
for her decision to send the court records using the MFP.
LEGAL ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS
I. Hoefling Violated the MGDPA by Collecting and Disseminating the Meeting
Recordings and Court Records.
A. Hoefling’s Recordings and the Public Court Filings She Retrieved
Became Government Data Subject to the MGDPA.
The MGDPA applies to “government data,” and creates a presumption that
government data is generally public, “unless there is federal law, a state statute, or
a temporary classification of data that provides that certain data are not public.”
Minn. Stat. § 13.01 subd. 3. The Act further establishes an obligation for
government entities (and by extension, by government employees) to secure
government data that is deemed “private” or “confidential,” as discussed further
below.
“Government data” is “all data collected, created, received, maintained or
disseminated by any government entity regardless of its physical form, storage
media or conditions of use.” Minn. Stat. § 13.02, subd. 7a. This definition sweeps
broadly and extends to data that is otherwise publicly available that is collected by
a government employee acting in their capacity as a government employee. See
KSTP-TV v. Metro. Council, 884 N.W.2d 342, 347–48 (Minn. 2016) (accepting as an
uncontroversial premise that video recording of the activity on public buses
became government data); Cf id. at 351 (Lillehaug, J. dissenting) (disagreeing with
the majority and arguing that public data should not be converted to government
data based solely on government collection of the data); Advisory Opinion 08-028
10 “Golden Valley Mayor Apologizes On Police Chief Search, City Approves Outside Investigation,”
CCX Media, March 16, 2022, available at https://ccxmedia.org/news/golden-valley-mayor-
apologizes-on-police-chief-search-city-approves-outside-investigation/.
35
(a Superintendent’s unannounced and otherwise unauthorized recording of a
public-school board meeting on his personal cell phone became government data).
The Commissioner of Administration has opined that “[t]he most important
factor in determining whether the data are government data is if [the government
employee] was acting in [her] capacity as [a government employee] when [she]
made the recording.” Advisory Opinion 08-028.
1. The Recorded Meetings.
Both the April 15 and May 13 meetings were virtual meetings conducted
using the City’s WebEx platform. The November 18, 2021 meeting was an in-
person meeting in a City conference room. All of the attendees at all three
meetings were employees of the City. The subjects discussed were exclusively
employment-related, including police officer morale, Diversity, Equity, and
Inclusion initiatives, and the language used to describe systemic racism in
connection with policing in the City. The meetings were not open to the public.
Hoefling was only allowed to attend the aforementioned meetings because
of her role as a police officer and City employee. Further, the comments Hoefling
made during the meetings were work-related. She conveyed her views about
police officer morale and challenged the language used
in connection with City initiatives and
email communications to City employees. Her comments demonstrated that her
role at the meetings was to receive information about City policies and initiatives,
to participate in a dialogue about those initiatives, and to offer thoughts about how
to improve employee morale within the police department.
Based on the circumstances of the meetings and Hoefling’s own conduct
during the meetings, we conclude that Hoefling was acting in her capacity as a City
employee when she made the recordings of the meetings. Accordingly, we
conclude that the recordings of all three of the meetings constituted government
data because all of the attendees, and the individual who made the recording, were
acting in their capacity as government employees at all relevant times.
This conclusion is consistent with the Commissioner of Administration’s prior
apposite Advisory Opinions, which have established that even data residing on an
employee’s personal device is government data if the data was collected in the
employee’s capacity as a government employee. See Advisory Opinion 08-028
37
government entity.” Minn. Stat. §13.43, subd. 1. Other than certain data
specifically enumerated in Minn. Stat. § 13.43, subd. 2, “[a]ll other personnel data
is private data on individuals.” The Commissioner of Administration has clarified
that it is not just data that is “maintained” by a government entity that constitutes
“personnel data,” but that data that is “collected or created…because an individual
is or was an employee of a government entity” constitutes personnel data as well.
See Advisory Opinion 02-003.
1. The Recordings.
In response to a request for an advisory opinion regarding Hoefling’s
recording of the April 15, 2021 meeting, the Commissioner of Administration
indicated that the subjects discussed during the April 15 and May meetings (e.g.
discussions about race equity in policing and police officer morale) are likely
“private” under Minn. Stat. § 13.43 subd. 4, because this is not the type of data
expressly described as public under Minn. Stat. §13.43, subd. 2 (e.g. an employee’s
“name,” “job title,” and “work location.”)
The content, audio, and video comprising the data reflected in the recordings
does not constitute public personnel data under Minn. Stat. § 13.43 subd. 2.
Indeed, with the notable exception of the names of the City employees
participating in the meeting (some of whom did not use their real names as screen
names on the WebEx virtual meetings), virtually all of the content of the meetings
constitutes private personnel data. The data was collected and created exclusively
because the individuals present held positions within the City government and
police department, and because the meeting participants were discussing City
policy and police department morale. Hoefling would not have had any reason to
participate in or record the meetings if the statements made during the meetings
(e.g., ) were made in the declarants’
personal capacities rather than in their capacities as City employees and leaders.
Indeed, the meetings were only important to Hoefling because they involved
controversial work-related issues regarding changes to policing practices,
confronting systemic racism within City government and policies, and supporting
police officers.
Accordingly, we conclude that all three recordings were primarily comprised
of private personnel data, which was collected because the subjects of the
recordings were employees of the City.
38
2. The Court Records.
As noted above, data collected or maintained because a person is an
“applicant for employment by…a government entity” is also classified under the
MGDPA as private personnel data. Minn. Stat. §13.43, subd. 1 (emphasis added).
There is little doubt, therefore, that the court records Hoefling collected regarding
were private personnel data, because the only reason she had to
collect (and then review and distribute) the records was because was an
applicant to become the . As explained above, the mere fact
that the data was publicly available on PACER does not prevent the data from
becoming private personnel data under the MGDPA if it was collected or
maintained because its subject was an applicant for City employment. See KSTP-
TV, 884 N.W.2d at 350 (explaining that otherwise public data (video of activity on
a public bus) becomes private personnel data if the data was maintained because
just one subject of the video was a government employee).
C. Hoefling’s Use and Dissemination of the Recordings and the Court
Records Violated the MGDPA.
Although it should go without saying, private personnel data is not “public”
under the MGDPA and access to such data is restricted. See Minn. Stat. § 13.03
subd. 1; Minn. Stat. § 13.02 subd. 8a (“’Not public data’ are any government data
classified by statute…as confidential, private, nonpublic, or protected nonpublic.”).
The City is required to “establish appropriate security safeguards for all records
containing data on individuals, including procedures for ensuring that data that are
not public are only accessible to persons whose work assignment reasonably
requires access to the data, and is only being accessed by those persons for purposes
described in the procedure.” Minn. Stat. § 13.05, subd. 5(a)(1)–(2) (emphasis
added). Further, “[p]rivate or confidential data on an individual shall not be
collected, stored, used, or disseminated by government entities for any purposes
other than those stated to the individual at the time of collection…[or] except…” as
specifically enumerated in Minn. Stat. § 13.05 subd. 4 (e.g., where the “individual
subject…of the data have given their informed consent” to the disclosure of the
data). None of the exceptions in said subsection apply here.
The MGDPA also imposes certain obligations on the City when there has
been a breach of the security of government data. See Minn. Stat. § 13.055. A
breach of the security of government data occurs when there has been an
“unauthorized acquisition of data maintained by a government entity that
39
compromises the security and classification of the data.” Minn. Stat. § 13.055,
subd. 1(a). “Good faith acquisition of or access to government data by an . . . agent
of a government entity for the purposes of the entity is not a breach of the security
of the data, if the government data is not provided to or viewable by an
unauthorized person . . .” Id. (emphasis added).
An “unauthorized acquisition” of government data occurs when “a person
has obtained, accessed, or viewed government data without the informed consent
of the individuals who are the subjects of the data or statutory authority and with
the intent to use the data for nongovernmental purposes.” Minn. Stat. § 13.055,
subd. 1(c). An “unauthorized person” is “any person who accesses government
data without a work assignment that reasonably requires access, or regardless of
the person's work assignment, for a purpose not described in the procedures
required by section 13.05, subdivision 5.” Minn. Stat. § 13.055, subd. 1(d).
Section 13.09 of the MGDPA establishes a criminal penalty for either willful
or knowing violations11 of the MGDPA and establishes that a willful violation of the
MGDPA constitutes “just cause” for disciplining an employee:
(a) Any person who willfully violates the provisions of this chapter or
any rules adopted under this chapter or whose conduct constitutes
11 Minnesota Courts have regularly held that the concept of “willfulness” differs between felony
and misdemeanor statutes. “In misdemeanor statutes, [willful] means a voluntary, knowing and
intentional act, as distinguished from accidental, involuntary, or unintentional.” State v. Jama,
908 N.W.2d 372, 376 (Minn. Ct. App. 2018), aff'd, 923 N.W.2d 632 (Minn. 2019) (quoting State v.
Green, 351 N.W.2d 42, 44 (Minn. App. 1984)). In the context of misdemeanor statutes, “willfully”
is “not among the terms used to denote a specific intent.”
However, in connection with the MGDPA, one court suggested that “willfully” means something
slightly more than “knowing and intentional,” indicating that a City employee’s honest belief that
data was private precluded a finding that the employee willfully violated the MGDPA by failing
to disclose what was actually public data in response to a MGDPA request. Demers v. City of
Minneapolis, 486 N.W.2d 828, 832 (Minn. Ct. App. 1992). Accordingly, it is likely that an honest
mistake about the classification of a data likely would not justify a finding of a willful violation of
the MGDPA.
It is well-established, however, that a “knowing” mens rea merely requires a defendant to “know
the facts that make [his or her] conduct illegal.” State v. Schwartz, 957 N.W.2d 414, 419 (Minn.
2021); Minn. Stat. 609.02 subd. 9.
40
the knowing unauthorized acquisition of not public data, as defined in
section 13.055, subdivision 1, is guilty of a misdemeanor.
(b) Willful violation of this chapter, including any action subject to a
criminal penalty under paragraph (a), by any public employee
constitutes just cause for suspension without pay or dismissal of the
public employee.
Hoefling engaged in multiple “unauthorized acquisitions” of private
personnel data in violation of the MGDPA. First, she recorded three City staff
meetings without obtaining the informed consent of any of the participants,
without any statutory authority to do so, and without supervisory approval or
knowledge. This amounted to “obtain[ing]” government data.
Second, she disseminated the recordings to advance her own personal views,
and not for any governmental purpose. She first disseminated the April 15, 2021
video. As reflected in her April 16, 2021 email to selected police officers, she sent
a link to the recording of the April 15, 2021 meeting to several of her coworkers for
the purpose of ridiculing the statements made by
and the positions of members of City leadership. She sarcastically
described statements made by as “the gem that
clearly highlighted what we all knew.” She further entitled the G: drive folder “A
Study in Racial Bias in City Leadership” indicating that she was suggesting that she
was providing a critique of racial biases expressed by members of the City
leadership. Additionally, she used a subject line for her email of “Sociology 101,”
suggesting sarcastically that City leaders had provided pseudo-academic
information during the meeting that she did not find educational or well-founded.
She also closed her email with the words “In Solidarity,” which evoked a sense of
being embattled or oppressed by City leadership.
In both her April 16 email and during her October 25, 2021 interview with
, Hoefling stated that her purpose in recording and sharing the
video of the April 15 meeting was “for retention purposes” – i.e. to allow those who
were not able to attend to watch the discussion. However, the circumstances
indicate that her explanation was disingenuous. In addition to the above-described
statements in her April 16, 2021 email, the contents of the recording further
demonstrate that Hoefling was not motivated by preserving the meeting for
posterity. The video reflects Hoefling’s own personal opinions, exasperated
exclamations, and commentary about the comments others made during the
42
Additionally, Hoefling engaged in the unauthorized acquisition of not public
data when she saved and disseminated federal court records related to
. Hoefling disseminated the records to City employees, outside the City’s
secure network to her own personal email, and apparently, to a CCX media news
reporter. She did not seek or obtain informed consent from before doing
so, and was not serving any governmental purpose. Rather, she was advancing her
own personal views regarding the City’s process using City
computer systems and networks.
Based on all of these circumstances, we conclude that Hoefling knowingly
engaged in the unauthorized acquisition of not public data in violation of the
MGDPA. Hoefling knew all of the facts that made her conduct inconsistent with
the MGDPA. She made surreptitious recordings of three staff meetings because
City employees would be discussing City policies during the meetings – the very
facts that rendered the contents of the meetings private personnel data under the
MGDPA. She did so without informing meeting attendees that she was recording
them, even going so far as to conceal a recording device in her bag before meeting
with the . She further
disseminated the recordings outside the City’s secure network in a folder she
entitled “secret.” These facts and the circumstances as a whole leave no doubt
that Hoefling acted “knowingly” in violation of the MGDPA.
Further, there is evidence to suggest that Hoefling acted “willfully” in the
sense of knowing that her conduct was wrongful or unlawful. Following the public
disclosure of the existence of her recording of the April 15, 2021 meeting, she asked
an IT professional with the City to delete the copies of her recordings she had saved
the G: drive, indicating that she was trying to conceal her unlawful acts because she
knew they were unlawful. As noted, she described her recordings as “secret” on
Dropbox, indicating that she was signaling to Officer that should not
disclose their existence because it was wrong for her to have made or kept the
recordings. Additionally, she was dishonest with about her
reasons for recording the April 15, 2021 meeting, suggesting that she knew she
could not give an honest explanation of her intent and remain compliant with the
law.
For these reasons, we conclude that Hoefling’s conduct of recording and
disseminating the videos of the staff meetings constitutes a significant violation of
the MGDPA that independently justifies terminating Hoefling’s employment.
43
We conclude that Hoefling’s conduct of collecting and disseminating public
court records regarding to be relatively less serious, but still in violation
of the MGDPA. This violation would not independently support a recommendation
to terminate Hoefling’s employment with the City, but it does further support that
recommendation in the context of Hoefling’s other conduct.
II. Hoefling’s Conduct Violated both the Professional Conduct of Peace
Officers’ Policy and the Golden Valley Employee Handbook.
A. The Professional Conduct of Peace Officer’s Policy.
The City Professional Conduct of Peace Officer’s Policy (the “Professional
Conduct Policy”) requires Golden Valley police officers to “conduct themselves,
whether on or off duty, in accordance with the Constitution of the United States,
the Minnesota Constitution, and all applicable laws, ordinances and rules enacted
or established pursuant to legal authority.” Professional Conduct Policy G.P. 8.01,
Principle One.
Greene Espel concludes that Hoefling’s violation of the MGDPA as described
above also constituted a violation of Principle One of the Professional Conduct
Policy, as it was a violation of applicable law.
Additionally, Principle Four of the Professional Conduct Policy states that
“Peace officers shall not, whether on or off duty, exhibit any conduct which
discredits themselves or their agency or otherwise impairs their ability or that of
other officers or the agency to provide law enforcement services to the
community.” The Professional Conduct Policy’s quoted “Rationale” for this
principle states in part that “Peace officers must conduct themselves in a manner
consistent with the integrity and trustworthiness expected of them by the public.”
Greene Espel concludes that Hoefling engaged in conduct that discredited
her, and that if not addressed, could discredit the Police Department. Hoefling’s
conduct of secretly recording staff meetings without informing her coworkers and
superiors, describing one of those recordings in a manner designed to ridicule a
City employee and City policies, and using and disseminating the recordings for
nongovernmental purposes violated this principle. Further, Hoefling’s use of the
City’s MFP to anonymously distribute her own collection of litigation related
documents related to an applicant for , and apparently distributing
44
those items outside the City’s secured network, demonstrated a lack of
professional integrity.
Additionally, Hoefling’s commentary captured on her recording of the May
13, 2021 meeting was offensive, showed a lack of integrity, and tends to discredit
her. Hoefling responded audibly on the video to the statement “Did you know that
in 2010, Black Americans made up 13% of the population, but only had 2.7% of the
country’s wealth” by stating “because they don’t work.” She shared this video with
at least one coworker outside the City’s network. This comment suggests that
Hoefling believes that “Black Americans” have a disproportionate level of wealth
because “they don’t work.” This is a racially biased statement, it is offensive, and
it discredits Hoefling.
Hoefling also exhibited dishonesty and a lack of integrity by telling her
superior officers that she recorded the April 15, 2021 for retention purposes.
Hoefling’s contemporaneous comments and actions demonstrate that she
recorded and disseminated the videos to ridicule a coworker’s statements and to
advance personal interests, as opposed to governmental purposes.
Hoefling’s use of the “Roni Macready” Facebook account to comment
publicly about the search for a new police chief, after she had personally
participated in panel interviews as part of the process, also demonstrated a lack of
integrity and discredits her. Members of the public would not immediately know
that Hoefling’s comments made using a pseudonym account were coming from a
Police Officer who had participated in the selection process for the new Chief,
creating confusion and creating the potential of tarnishing the reputation of the
City and the Police Department.
Principle Five of the Professional Conduct Policy requires Peace Officers to
“treat all members of the public courteously and with respect.” The principle
applies to officers’ “dealings with the public, other officers, superiors and
subordinates.”
Hoefling’s conduct, as described in detail above in connection with Principle
Four, also constitutes disrespectful and discourteous behavior in violation of
Principle Five. Additionally, Hoefling also referred to comments made by
during the May 13, 2021 meeting as “circle talk” and referred to claims made by
presenters on a Race Forward video as “goofy claims.” The use of these terms
during a staff meeting is also discourteous.
45
Further, Principle Eight of the Professional Conduct Policy states that police
officers must “observe the confidentiality of information available to them due to
their status as peace officers.” Again, Hoefling’s violation of the MGDPA as
described above also constitutes a violation of this principle.
B. The Golden Valley Employee Handbook.
Additionally, the City Employee Handbook (the “Employee Handbook”)
acknowledges that City employees may have access to confidential information “as
defined by the [MGDPA],” through the course of their employment. Under the
Employee Handbook, City employees “must not disclose confidential information
to others or use it to further their personal interests.” Employee Handbook at p.
37.
We conclude that Hoefling’s dissemination of private personnel data in
furtherance of her own personal views and in furtherance of her coworkers’
personal interests, as well as her dissemination of the data outside the City’s secure
network, violated this Employee Handbook policy.
The Handbook also contains a Respectful Workplace policy that is aimed at
creating a working environment that is free of offensive behavior and unlawful
discrimination.
We conclude that Hoefling’s conduct of recording her coworkers and
superiors without first obtaining their informed consent – and going so far as to
conceal a recording device in a bag while meeting with City leaders – constituted
offensive behavior that transgressed the norms of a respectful, civil workplace.
Hoefling also violated the respectful workplace policy by sending her April 16, 2021
email ridiculing ’s statements to her coworkers,
and by saving and disseminating her recordings with her own commentary and
statements intertwined with the contents of the meetings. Additionally, as
described above, Hoefling’s comments on her May 13, 2021 recording exhibited
racial bias and were offensive. She was also discourteous in describing the content
of that meeting as “circle talk” and “goofy.” All of this conduct was in violation of
the respectful workplace policy.
The Handbook also contains a “Use of City Property” policy that states, in
pertinent part that “[t]he City’s equipment (including mobile devices, laptops,
computers, or tablets)…must not compromise the City’s standards, values, or
48
public scrutiny of ’s statements without context further supports our
recommendation to terminate Hoefling’s employment.
IV. Hoefling Refused to Participate in a Compelled Interview.
As described above, neither Hoefling nor her counsel provided any plausible
reason why she could or would not appear for a compelled interview in connection
with this investigation. Indeed, LELS initially told Greene Espel that Hoefling would
participate in an interview if she was compelled to do so. Then, when she was
formally compelled to participate in the interview, she changed course. These facts
demonstrate that Hoefling refused to participate in an investigative interview that
was expressly made mandatory by her employer.
Hoefling’s refusal to participate in a compelled interview further justifies
terminating her employment.
V. Conclusion.
Greene Espel recommends that the City terminate Officer Hoefling as soon
as practicable based on: 1) her multiple violations of the MGDPA; 2) her multiple
violations of the Professional Conduct Policy and the Employee Handbook; 3) her
role in disseminating the recording of the April 15, 2021 meeting and causing public
scrutiny of ’s confidential comments without context; and 4) because she
refused to participate in a mandatory interview regarding this investigation.
SS