A St. Paul mayor sexual harassment complaint has moved from private correspondence into public view, and the two people at the center of it occupy the two most visible offices in the city’s government.

Police Chief Axel Henry filed a formal complaint against Mayor Kaohly Her, according to a document confirmed by 5 EYEWITNESS NEWS. The filing alleges that the mayor directed inappropriate sexual comments at Henry and at other people employed by the city.

Her is now under investigation. Henry has sat for extensive interviews with investigators on at least two separate occasions.

What the Document Says

The complaint is addressed to the city attorney and dated April 1, meaning it has been in the hands of city officials for roughly four months before becoming public.

One line in particular signals how seriously the matter is being treated. The document states that litigation is reasonably foreseeable.

That phrase carries specific weight in legal and municipal contexts. It is the language attorneys use to trigger a duty to preserve records — emails, text messages, calendars, personnel files and anything else that might become evidence. Once a party asserts that a lawsuit is reasonably foreseeable, routine document destruction is supposed to stop, and the organization is expected to place a litigation hold on relevant material.

In plain terms, the complaint was not framed as an informal grievance to be smoothed over internally. It was framed as the opening move in something that may end up in court.

Two Offices, One Chain of Command

What makes this situation unusual is the structure it sits inside.

In St. Paul, as in most cities with a strong-mayor system, the police chief serves at the pleasure of the mayor. The mayor appoints the position and can, subject to certain procedures, remove the person holding it. That means the person filing the complaint reports directly to the person the complaint is about.

Ordinary workplace harassment procedures assume a neutral party sits above the dispute — a human resources department, a supervisor, an ethics office. When the accused is the chief executive of the organization, that assumption breaks down. There is no one internally who outranks the mayor.

This is why the complaint went to the city attorney rather than through a standard HR channel, and why outside investigators typically become involved in cases like this one. Municipalities facing allegations against elected leadership routinely retain independent counsel, precisely because any internal review would be vulnerable to the accusation that it was conducted by people whose jobs depend on the subject of the inquiry.

Where Things Stand

Several things are known. A formal complaint exists. It was filed by the police chief. It alleges inappropriate sexual comments toward him and toward other city employees. It is dated April 1. It anticipates possible litigation. An investigation is underway, and Henry has been interviewed at length more than once.

Considerably more remains unknown, and it is worth being precise about that.

The specific conduct alleged has not been detailed publicly beyond the general characterization in the document. The identities of the other employees referenced have not been disclosed. Whether those employees have filed complaints of their own, corroborated Henry’s account, or been interviewed at all is not established in the available record.

The mayor has not been shown to have responded publicly to the allegations. No findings have been issued. No conclusions have been reached by any investigative body.

Allegations at this stage are exactly that — allegations. An investigation exists to determine what happened, not to confirm what has been claimed.

How These Investigations Usually Proceed

For readers unfamiliar with the process, municipal harassment investigations tend to follow a recognizable arc.

An investigator, often an attorney retained from outside the city, begins by interviewing the complainant in detail. That is the stage Henry appears to have completed at least twice.

Witnesses come next. Anyone identified as having observed the alleged conduct, or as having experienced similar conduct, is typically contacted. In a case involving multiple employees, that list can grow substantially.

Documentary evidence is gathered in parallel — communications, schedules, records establishing who was present when and where.

The subject of the complaint is generally interviewed toward the end, after the investigator has assembled enough material to ask specific questions rather than general ones.

A written report follows, usually with findings on whether each allegation is substantiated, unsubstantiated, or inconclusive. What happens to that report varies enormously depending on state and local law, and on whether litigation is filed.

The Minnesota Government Data Practices Act governs how much of this material eventually becomes public, and the answer often depends on the outcome. Records related to complaints against public employees can become accessible once discipline is imposed, but elected officials sit in a different category than appointed staff, which complicates the analysis considerably.

Why the Timing Matters

The four-month gap between the complaint’s filing and its emergence in the press raises questions the city will likely face in the coming days.

Cities are generally not obligated to publicize a complaint the moment it is filed, and there are legitimate reasons for confidentiality during an active investigation — protecting witnesses, preventing coordination of accounts, and avoiding prejudgment of an unresolved matter.

But the same confidentiality that protects the process can look like concealment once documents surface through the press rather than through official channels. That tension is a recurring feature of these cases, and it is often where public trust is won or lost, independent of what the investigation ultimately concludes.

What to Watch

Three developments will shape how this unfolds.

Whether the mayor responds publicly, and how directly. Silence from an elected official facing allegations of this nature tends to become its own story.

Whether additional employees come forward. The complaint references others, and their participation — or absence — will substantially affect the investigation’s weight.

Whether litigation actually materializes. The April 1 document flagged it as foreseeable. If a lawsuit is filed, the allegations move into a forum where evidence is tested publicly and under oath.

For now, St. Paul has a police department and a mayor’s office locked in a dispute that neither can resolve internally, and residents waiting on an answer that will take time to arrive.