Facts and Procedural History:

On February 6, 2006, IPAD received a letter dated February 1, 2006, from Rose Kubiatowicz. In her letter, Ms. Kubiatowicz asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding her right to gain access to certain data from the City of North Saint Paul.

IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Wally Wysopal, Manager of the City, in response to Ms. Kubiatowicz's request. The purposes of this letter, dated February 8, 2006, were to inform him of Ms. Kubiatowicz's request and to ask him to provide information or support for the City's position. On February 22, 2006, IPAD received a response, dated February 17, 2006, from Thomas Lauth, the City's Police Chief.

A summary of the facts as provided by Ms. Kubiatowicz is as follows. In a letter dated December 30, 2005, she wrote to the City and asked for certain data about a City employee.

In a letter dated January 17, 2006, Chief Lauth provided some of the requested data.

In a January 25, 2006, letter, Ms. Kubiatowicz wrote:

On my [December 30, 2005] request I asked for the names and addresses of any and all Complainants. The [City's response] did not give me names and addresses, but rather listed three instances where the complainant was described as an individual. I am hereby requesting the names and addresses of the three individuals who have made complaints.

In a January 27, 2006, letter, Chief Lauth responded:

I am unable to honor your request [the employee] has disputed the disposition as is afforded him by the Collective Bargaining Agreement and, as such, the information you have requested is not public data until a final disposition. Please refer to Minnesota State Statute 13.43, Subdivision 2 (8) (b).

Issue:

Did the City of North Saint Paul comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in responding to a request for the names and addresses of three individuals, each of whom made a complaint against a City police officer?

---

Discussion:

Government data are public unless otherwise classified. (See Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 1.)

In his comments to the Commissioner, Chief Lauth wrote:

Some of the information requested by Rose Kubiatowicz is not public data (Private) at this time. Specifically, the information she has requested is in regards to an employee who is covered by a collective bargaining agreement (CBA). The employee has disputed the disposition as is afforded by the CBA. The employee and the Union Representative have filed grievances regarding the three (3) dispositions, in accordance with the labor agreement.

Pending final resolution of the grievances will determine whether the data requested is public or private.

In his January 27, 2006, response to Ms. Kubiatowicz, Chief Lauth cited section 13.43, subdivision 2(8)(b), as the basis upon which the City was denying access to the data. As there is no section 13.43, subdivision 2(8)(b), the Commissioner assumes Chief Lauth is referring to section 13.43, subdivision 2(b). This statutory provision prescribes the conditions that must exist for a final disposition to have occurred. Once there is a final disposition, a government entity must make public certain data about an employee against whom a complaint has been lodged. What Chief Lauth seems to be asserting is that, because the employee against whom complaints have been lodged has grieved the City's disciplinary action, limited data about the matter are public at this time.

Ms. Kubiatowicz has asked for identifying information about the individuals who made complaints against the City employee, not for data about the employee against whom the complaints were lodged. It appears Chief Lauth has taken the position that data identifying the complainants are data about the employee against whom the complaints have been lodged. The Commissioner disagrees. The names and addresses about the complainants are data about the complainants. If the complainants are members of the public, the data about them are public pursuant to section 13.03, subdivision 1. (See Demers v. City of Minneapolis, 468 N.W.2d 71 (Minn. 1991) and Advisory Opinion 96-002.) If the complainants are employees, their names and addresses are private data pursuant to section 13.43, subdivision 4.

---

Opinion:

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

If the complainants are members of the public, the City of North Saint Paul did not comply with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, in responding to a request for their names and addresses. If the complainants are employees, the City appropriately withheld their names and addresses; however, the basis for denying access is section 13.43, subdivision 4, not section 13.43, subdivision 2(b).

Signed:

Dana B. Badgerow
Commissioner

Dated: March 23, 2006

---