July 7, 1999; City of Waterville
7/7/1999 10:14:43 AM
This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to section 13.072 of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 - the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.
Facts and Procedural History:For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of IPA and, except for any data classified as not public, are available for public access. On April 27, 1999, IPA received a letter from Jeff McFarland, Chair of the City of Waterville Police Civil Service Commission. In his letter, Mr. McFarland asked the Commissioner to issue an opinion regarding the classification of certain data maintained by the Commission. In response, IPA requested clarification and additional information. On May 19, 1999, IPA received a letter from Terrence J. Foy, attorney for the City. A summary of the detailed facts of this matter follows. The Waterville Police Civil Service Commission was established under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 419. Pursuant to section 419.05, [t]he commission shall have absolute control and supervision over the employment, promotion, discharge, and suspension of all officers and employees of the police department of such city and these powers shall extend to and include all members of the police department. An employee under the jurisdiction of the Commission has been placed on administrative leave. According to Mr. McFarland, [m]embers of the Waterville City Council, representing the City as the actual employer, have requested that the Commission provide them with private personnel data regarding the underlying basis . . . . for the leave. According to Mr. Foy, [c]ertain of the private personnel data regarding the employee's placement on administrative leave consists of medical data relating to whether the employee can perform the essential functions of the position with or without reasonable accommodation. Other private personnel data consists of data relating to a complaint or charge against the employee. Issue:In his request for an opinion, Mr. McFarland asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
Discussion:Certain data about public employees are classified as public, and all other personnel data are private, pursuant to section 13.43, subdivisions 2 and 4. Of relevance here, the following data are public under section 13.43, subdivision 2: the existence and status of any complaints or charges against the employee, and the fact that an employee is on administrative leave for medical reasons. The specific reasons for the use of sick or other medical leave are private data. Accordingly, members of the City Council may gain access to public data about the employee, as could any member of the public, including the fact that there is a complaint or charge made against the employee, its status, and the fact that the employee is on an administrative leave for medical reasons. In addition, pursuant to Minnesota Rules Part 1205.0400, subpart 2, private data may be disclosed to individuals within a government entity, i.e., city council members, whose work assignments reasonably require access to the data. Pursuant to Minnesota Rules Part 1205.0400, subpart 3: [t]he responsible authority shall establish written procedures to assure that access is gained only by those parties identified in subpart 2. Therefore, if the responsible authority for the City has made the determination that Council members' work assignments reasonably require access to the data, the City Council members may gain access to private data about the reasons for the employee's leave, and details about the complaint or charge made against her/him. (See Minnesota Rules Part 1205.0400, subpart 2.) The City did not provide the Commissioner with a copy of the written procedures required by Rule, or details about the Council's relationship with the Commission. Thus, it is difficult for the Commissioner to make that determination. The Commissioner can envision circumstances under which the Council members' work assignments in providing direction to City operations would require them to have access to the kind of data described by Mr. Foy. However, that requires a specific determination by the responsible authority for the City. The Commissioner has not been provided any information that states that the responsible authority has made that determination. One further note: Mr. Foy stated that some of the private data relate to whether the employee can perform the essential functions of the position with or without reasonable accommodation. That suggests that the City might need to explore possible implications of the federal Americans With Disabilities Act when making its determination regarding dissemination of the data in question. Opinion:Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue raised by Mr. McFarland is as follows:
Signed:
David F. Fisher
Dated: July 7, 1999 |
Personnel data
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)
Work assignment requires access
Work assignment reasonably requires access (1205.0400, 1205.0600)
