July 16, 1997; University of Minnesota
7/16/1997 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 PIPA and, with the exception of any data classified as not public, are available for public access.On May 28, 1997, PIPA received a letter dated May 2, 1997, from Mark Anfinson, an attorney representing certain University of Minnesota faculty members. In his letter, Mr. Anfinson requested that the Commissioner issue an opinion regarding his access to certain data maintained by the University of Minnesota. PIPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Tracy Smith, Associate General Counsel for the University of Minnesota, in response to Mr. Anfinson's request. The purposes of this letter, dated June 4, 1997, were to inform her of Mr. Anfinson's request and to ask her to provide information or support for the University's position. On July 3, 1997, PIPA received a response, dated same, from Ms. Smith. A summary of the facts as presented by Mr. Anfinson is as follows. Mr. Anfinson stated that he had requested access to the personal calendars maintained by the members and staff of the Board of Regents during the period from November 1, 1995 to the present, and any schedules or scheduling records prepared in connection with official activities of the Regents during this period. He wrote that the University responded by producing copies of approximately 1,000 pages, purportedly from such calendars. He added that because most everything except for the dates had been redacted, essentially none of the requested information was made available. Mr. Anfinson stated that in refusing to release the data, the University was apparently relying upon Commissioner of Administration Advisory Opinion 96-055 in which the Commissioner opined that appointment calendars maintained by public employees are private personnel data. Mr. Anfinson argued that the Regents are not employees of the University but rather are members of the governing body designated by the Legislature. He wrote, Thus it would seem that the provisions of Minn. Stat. 13.43 do not apply to them - nor should they.
Issue:
In his request for an opinion, Mr. Anfinson asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
Discussion:
Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13, data created, collected, and maintained by government entities are government data, which are public unless otherwise classified. (See Section 13.03, subdivision 1.) Data maintained about employees of and those providing volunteer services to a government entity are classified specifically by Section 13.43, personnel data. Subdivision 2 of Section 13.43 classifies specific types of personnel data as public and subdivision 4 classifies all remaining personnel data as private.
The issue of the classification of appointment calendars of public employees has already been addressed in Advisory Opinion 96-055; the Commissioner opined that the appointment calendar of the Commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Human Rights was classified as private personnel data under Section 13.43. She wrote, [i]t 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. In regard to the issue of the personal calendars, Ms. Smith responded that Mr. Anfinson had made a request for data relating to tenure. She stated that in response to his request, the University made available for inspection the appointment calendar entries of Steven Bonsacker [Executive Director of the Board of Regents] and Kim Isenberg [project assistant who worked on tenure issues for the Board] related to tenure. Ms. Smith further stated that after the University released the appointment calendars of Mr. Bonsacker and Ms. Isenberg, the Commissioner issued Advisory Opinion 96-055. Ms. Smith wrote that the University exceeded its obligations under Chapter 13 in making the appointment calendar entries available. She stated, Under the private personnel data section of the Data Practices Act, and in accordance with the Advisory Opinion issued by the Commissioner on this topic, the appointment calendars of these two University employees were private personnel data. Ms. Smith then presented two arguments as to why the personal calendars of the Regents are not public data: 1) because the Regents provide volunteer service to the University, data created, collected, and maintained about them in the course of their volunteer activities are classified as private per Section 13.43; and 2) if the Regents are not, as Mr. Anfinson has asserted, volunteer agents of the University, then the data they create or collect in their private and personal capacity is not government data' subject to [Chapter 13]. Ms. Smith added, Thus, even the University-related entries in their personal calendars would not be government data. The Commissioner is in agreement with the University's position as submitted by Ms. Smith. In the case of the calendars of Mr. Bosacker and Ms. Isenberg, because they are both employees of the University, based on Advisory Opinion 96-055, the data in the calendars are private personnel data. In the case of the calendars of the Regents, if they are volunteers, the data are private per Section 13.43. If the Regents are not volunteers, the data in the calendars are not government data and are not subject to the requirements of Chapter 13.
In regard to the other scheduling data requested by Mr. Anfinson, Ms. Smith wrote that the University made available the agendas and minutes of the Board meetings, as well as documents related to tenure that reflected or recorded meetings of the Board or Board members. Ms. Smith stated, The University turned over tenure-related documents because we understood the request to concern tenure. The University did not turn over the weekly calendar sheet because that sheet generally did not reflect the meetings and appointments of the Regents, and we did not think that it was the type of document sought by Mr. Anfinson. She further wrote:
Based on the information provided, it is not clear if there continues to be a dispute regarding the additional scheduling data requested by Mr. Anfinson. If Mr. Anfinson desires access to data that were not initially supplied by the University, he should contact Ms. Smith with his request. Opinion:Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue raised by Mr. Anfinson is as follows:
Signed:
Elaine S. Hansen
Dated: July 16, 1997 |
Schedules/calendars
Appointment calendars
