Facts and Procedural History:

On, August 30, 2007, IPAD received a letter, dated August 28, 2007, from Nancy Blumstein, an attorney, on behalf of her client, Independent School District 347, Willmar. In her letter, Ms. Blumstein asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding the classification of certain data the District maintains. IPAD requested clarification and additional information, which Ms. Blumstein provided in a letter dated September 17, 2007.

In response to Ms. Blumstein's request, IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Meg Kane, an attorney, on behalf of her client, the parent of a District student. The purpose of this letter, dated September 20, 2007, was to invite her to submit comments, because her client's rights may be affected by the outcome of this opinion. Ms. Kane provided comments in a letter dated October 9, 2007.

A summary of the facts as Ms. Blumstein presented them follows.

According to Ms. Blumstein:

The District employs a teacher about whom complaints regarding the treatment of students have been made. The District has thoroughly investigated any and all complaints. No discipline resulted from the investigations. The parent of one of the students mentioned in the reports has now demanded copies of any and all investigation reports in which [his/her] child is mentioned. The student and [his/her] parent were interviewed for only one of the investigations. However, the Student's name was raised in the course of three investigations.

The District has provided the Parent copies of all educational records it maintains for the Student. This specifically includes a redacted copy of the summary of the one interview conducted with the Parent and the Student.

The District has not released any other portion of the investigation reports that the Parent has requested because it believes the information constitutes private personnel data to which the student and parent have no right of access. The investigations were undertaken as a result of the teacher's employment with the District and in order to determine the appropriateness of [his/her] conduct as a teacher. The District has reviewed the data in question and has determined that the teacher, not the student, is the subject of both the investigation and the data. The review confirms that the identity of the student about whom the teacher is alleged to have mistreated is completely incidental to the report.

In her comments, Ms. Kane stated that the data in question are public under section 13.43, subdivisions 2(a)(4) (5), and 2(b).

Issue:

Did Independent School District 347, Willmar, comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, when it determined that a student's name, which appears in certain data relating to an investigation of allegations of misconduct by a teacher, is only incidental to the data, and is not private educational data under section 13.32?

---

Discussion:

Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 1, government data are public unless otherwise classified.

Data on individuals means government data in which any individual is or can be identified as the subject of that data unless the appearance of the name or other identifying data can be clearly demonstrated to be only incidental to the data and the data are not accessed by the name or other identifying data of any individual. (See section 13.02, subdivision. 5.)

Minnesota Statutes, section 13.32, classifies data on individuals that are about students. Generally, pursuant to section 13.32 and federal law, data about students are private.

Section 13.43 classifies data on individuals who are current or former employees. Subdivision 2 lists the types of personnel data that are public and subdivision 4 classifies most other types of personnel data as private.

In a situation in which someone has complained about an employee, the following data are public pursuant to section 13.43, subdivision 2(a)(4): the existence and status of the complaint or charge.

If a government entity has taken disciplinary action and a final disposition has occurred, the following additional data are public pursuant to section 13.43, subdivision 2(a)(5): the final disposition of any disciplinary action together with the specific reasons for the action and data documenting the basis for the action.

According to Ms. Blumstein, the District did not take disciplinary action against the teacher. Therefore, pursuant to section 13.43, the only associated data about the teacher that are accessible to the public are the existence and status of the complaint or charge. The Commissioner respectfully disagrees with Ms. Kane's assertion that the interviews and all other investigative data are public.

If any of the data related to the District's investigations of misconduct by a teacher are classified as private educational data, however, the parent of the data subject child would be entitled to have access to those data. Ms. Blumstein asserts that the data in question are solely private personnel data about the teacher.

Ms. Blumstein wrote, [t]o the extent the Student was mentioned in the reports, [his/her] identity was incidental. In other words, whether it was [him/her] or another student whom the teacher was alleged to have mistreated was immaterial to the investigation.

Ms. Blumstein further commented:

In this case, the identity of any student referenced in the reports of which the Parent requested copies is merely incidental to the purpose for which the investigative reports were conducted and have been maintained (the employee's performance). Therefore, the Student(s) are not the subject [sic] of the data requested and the data cannot be considered educational data. See Edina Education Association v. Independent School District No. 273, 562 N.W.2d 306, 311 (Minn.App. 1997); Minnesota Department of Administration Advisory Opinion: 00-065.

The Commissioner has opined previously that in situations like this, in which an entity must determine who is/are the subject(s) of government data, the entity is in the best position to make that determination. Ms. Blumstein stated that the District examined the data in question, and determined that the teacher is the only subject, and that the student's name is only incidental to the data. Therefore, the District appropriately denied the parent access to data other than the redacted interview with the parent's child.

---

Opinion:

Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue that Ms. Blumstein raised is as follows:

Independent School District 347, Willmar, complied with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, when it determined that a student's name, which appears in certain data relating to an investigation of allegations of misconduct by a teacher, is only incidental to the data, and is not private educational data under section 13.32.

Signed:

Dana B. Badgerow
Commissioner

Dated: October 17, 2007

---