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.

Note: The Commissioner clarified in Advisory Opinion 20-003 that employee calendars may also contain public government data.

Facts and Procedural History:

For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the person who that 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 PIPA and, with the exception of any data classified as not public, are available for public access.

On October 17, 1996, PIPA received a letter requesting this opinion from David Shaffer, reporter for the Saint Paul Pioneer Press newspaper. In that letter, Mr. Shaffer described his attempts to gain access to certain data maintained by the Minnesota Department of Human Rights (DHR). Mr. Shaffer enclosed copies of related correspondence. (In the letter requesting this opinion, Mr. Shaffer was joined by Dan Browning, another Pioneer Press reporter. Mr. Browning asked the Commissioner to address a similar issue involving Ramsey County, which is the subject of Commissioner's Advisory Opinion 96-056.)

In response to Mr. Shaffer's request, PIPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Ken Nickolai, Acting Deputy Commissioner of the DHR. The purposes of this letter, dated October 22, 1996, were to inform Mr. Nickolai of Mr. Shaffer's request, to ask him or the Department's attorney to provide information or support for its position, and to inform him of the date by which the Commissioner was required to issue this opinion.

On November 14, 1996, PIPA received a response from Mr. Nickolai. A summary of the detailed facts of this matter follows.

According to Mr. Shaffer, on September 20, 1996, he requested copies of DHR Commissioner David Beaulieu's appointment calendars. On September 27, 1996, Mr. Nickolai denied Mr. Shaffer's request, on the basis that the data are private, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.43, subdivision 4. Mr. Shaffer said he suggested to Mr. Nickolai that if certain data in the calendars were not public, those data could be redacted. Mr. Nickolai rejected that suggestion. On October 14, 1996, Mr. Nickolai told Mr. Shaffer that Mr. Beaulieu had removed the calendars from the DHR.

According to Mr. Shaffer:

Appointment calendars are not personnel data.' Personnel data is defined at the beginning of [Section] 13.43 as data on individuals collected because the individual is or was an employee' of government. Calendars are not collected' for someone's personnel file; they are records of an employee's work, not substantially different from telephone records. The calendars are presumptively public under [Section] 13.01 Subd. 3 if not explicitly public under [Section] 13.43 Subd. 2(a)(8).

In his response to the Commissioner, Mr. Nickolai stated that Mr. Beaulieu's appointment calendars were purchased by the DHR, the data in them were created and collected by his secretary from Mr. Beaulieu and other individuals, and . . . the appointment calendars contain information which was collected because Beaulieu was Commissioner of the Department of Human Rights.

Mr. Nickolai further stated:

None of the listed categories of public data [contained in Section 13.43, subdivision 2] applies to the data in Beaulieu's appointment calendars. Of the listed categories, only subd. 2(a)(8) refers to a category of data that is similar to the purpose of [an] appointment calendar. That section refers to payroll time sheets or other comparable data that are only used to account for employees work time for payroll purposes . . .' As the description above reveals, Beaulieu's appointment calendars are not used solely in order to account for this time for payroll purposes. The appointment calendars were used by Beaulieu's secretary to allow her to plan his appointments, to keep a record of them for him, and to assist Beaulieu in avoiding promises to be in two places at one time.

Mr. Nickolai concluded that [b]ecause Beaulieu's appointment calendars are not described within the definition of public data in [Section 13.43, subdivision 2] the data are private pursuant to Section 13.43, subdivision 4.

---

Issue:

In his request for an opinion, Mr. Shaffer asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:

Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13, does Mr. Shaffer have the right to gain access to a copy of Mr. Beaulieu's appointment calendars?

---

Discussion:

Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.03, subdivision 1, government data are presumed to be public unless the data are classified as not public by statute, temporary classification (see Section 13.06), or federal law.

Pursuant to Section 13.43, subdivision 1, personnel data are defined as data on individuals collected because the individual is or was an employee of or an applicant for employment by, performs services on a voluntary basis for, or acts as an independent contractor with a state agency, statewide system or political subdivision or is a member of or an applicant for an advisory board or commission.

Mr. Nickolai described in detail the reasons for, and manner in which, the data in Mr. Beaulieu's calendars were collected and created. Therefore, it is reasonable to determine that those data were collected and created because the individual is or was a public employee.

When the Legislature enacted Section 13.43, it intended for its operation to be fairly simple. Specific personnel data were classified as public, and all other personnel data were classified as private. (See Section 13.43, subdivisions 2 and 4.) The data in Mr. Beaulieu's appointment calendars were collected and created because Mr. Beaulieu was an employee of the DHR. From the information provided, it appears that the data in the appointment calendars are not data classified as public pursuant to Section 13.43, subdivision 2. Therefore, the Commissioner concludes that the data in Mr. Beaulieu's appointment calendars are private personnel data, pursuant to Section 13.43, subdivision 4.

The Commissioner acknowledges that, in light of the strong legislative policy of public accountability that underlies much of Chapter 13, this may appear as a puzzling result. However, it is the result dictated by statute.

---

Opinion:

Based on the correspondence in this matter, my opinion on the issue raised by Mr. Shaffer is as follows:

The data in Mr. Beaulieu's appointment calendars are classified as private personnel data, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.43. Therefore, Mr. Shaffer does not have the right to gain access to a copy of the calendars.

---