April 2, 2016

Jim Stratton, Chairman

Minnesota Rural Counties Caucus
5077 144th Street West
Saint Paul, MN 55124
RE: Request for Investigation into Employee Communication Regarding Pipeline
Dear Chairman Stratton:
I am responding to your letter of January 18, 2016, expressing concerns about an MPCA staff
members email communication with a number of external groups regarding the proposed Enbridge
Sandpiper pipeline
To answer the questions raised about the employees actions, I promptly engaged an independent
investigator to complete a full review of the factual background and context in which the particular
emails in question were generated, and assess if there was other evidence of impropriety. The
investigator interviewed a number of individuals and reviewed several hundred emails. That effort
took place over several weeks, and I received a final report late last month.
The independent investigation did not produce any cause for disciplinary action. Additionally, at my
request, expert reviewers at Minnesota Management and Budget (MMB) conducted a second level
review of the entire report, and they agreed with that conclusion. Per state law, specific information
contained in employee personnel investigations is nonpublic data, and may not be disclosed.
I will explain some of the findings of the independent investigation: The Position Description of the
employee in question requires that he work directly with several local non-governmental
organizations in North Central Minnesota. The groups have expressed opposition to the proposed
pipeline project route. Of the hundreds of email messages reviewed, only two contained poorly
chosen words. All parties who work with the employee agreed that the employee did not oppose
the pipeline projects; rather, he opposed specific routes and alignments of the pipelines because of
heightened environmental risks in certain locations. This investigation confirmed the employee is
performing his work within the scope of his duties and professionalism.
The media attention on this matter and the controversial, sensitive nature of the proposed Sandpiper
pipeline project will continue, adding undue focus on this employee and his role as the project
reviews proceed. This employees watershed protection work duties will continue with these same
local non-governmental organizations. Protecting my employees ongoing integrity and reputation
is important to me. Consequently, in light of these considerations, I have decided that the employee
will not directly work on the review of the Sandpiper and Line 3 pipeline proposals on behalf of
MPCA. Other MPCA staff will contribute to the completion of the EIS, using the previous work
products and materials, which have not been shown to have any credible taint of bias. Both
Governor Dayton and I are committed to assuring public confidence and transparency in our

J. Stratton
April 2, 2016
Page Two

regulatory work, and to eliminate any perception of conflicts of interest when conducting a fully
objective review of the proposed projects.
The Legislative Auditor has informed me that he will now review the investigation report as well as all
the materials that the investigator reviewed, when making yet another independent assessment of
this particular situation. I am confident that when this effort is completed, any questions about the
factual context of our employees performance of his work duties will be fully answered.
Sincerely,

John Linc Stine

Commissioner