July 26, 2001; Minnesota Department of Employee Relations
7/26/2001 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 HistoryFor 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 May 15, 2001, IPA received a letter dated May 11, 2001, from Gregg Corwin, an attorney representing the Minnesota Association of Professional Employees (MAPE). In his letter, Mr. Corwin requested that the Commissioner issue an advisory opinion regarding MAPE's access to certain data that the Minnesota Department of Employee Relations (DOER) maintains. At the request of IPA staff, James Monroe, Executive Director of MAPE, provided additional information in a letter received by IPA on May 31, 2001. IPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Julien Carter, Commissioner of DOER, in response to Mr. Corwin's request. The purposes of this letter, dated May 31, 2001, were to inform him of Mr. Corwin's request and to ask him to provide information or support for the Department's position. On June 11, 2001, IPA received a letter, dated June 8, 2001, from Commissioner Carter. A summary of the facts is as follows. In a letter dated April 17, 2001, Mr. Monroe requested certain data from DOER. In his letter to the Commissioner (of Administration) he wrote: Following submission of the information request, I had telephone conversations with [DOER staff and the state's Chief Negotiator] concerning this request. During these conversations, we agreed to drop our request for MAPE specific information and would work with the information for the entire plan....[both DOER staff and the State's chief negotiator] informed me verbally that they would not provide the information we requested. Mr. Corwin then requested this opinion on behalf of MAPE. Issue:In his request for an opinion, Mr. Corwin asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
Discussion:Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 1, all government data are public unless they are classified otherwise. In relevant part, section 13.67, employee relations data, states: The following data collected, created, or maintained by the department of employee relations are classified as nonpublic data pursuant to section 13.02, subdivision 9... (e) Claims experience and all related information received from carriers and claims administrators participating in either the state group insurance plan, the Minnesota employee insurance program, the state workers' compensation program, or the public employees insurance program as defined in chapter 43A, and survey information collected from employees and employers participating in these plans and programs, except when the department determines that release of the data will not be detrimental to the plan or program. In his comments to the Commissioner, Commissioner Carter wrote: All of the data requested by MAPE is covered by [section 13.67], and therefore, classified as nonpublic unless the department determines that release of the data will not be detrimental to the plan or program. We have determined that the release of these data will be detrimental to the plan or program. DOER has a legal and fiduciary responsibility to manage all aspects of the State Employee Group Insurance Program, including appropriate setting of rates and reserves. Release of the data requested by MAPE compromises our ability to effectively carry out these responsibilities. Moreover, any misrepresentation or misuse of these data even though unintentional, could result in significant adverse impact on the program, including but not limited to changes to the rate setting and reserving process, that could potentially place the state at serious financial risk and exposure. Upon examining section 13.67, it is clear the Legislature, in adopting this provision, intended that all claims experience and related information from carriers and claims administrators, and survey information collected from employees and employers be protected. It is also clear the Legislature gave considerable discretion to DOER by providing that DOER could decide to release any of this information if it determines that release of the data will not be detrimental to the plan or program. The Commissioner also adds that, in the case of this opinion, neither MAPE nor DOER provided any significant detail about the data at issue. The first group of data Mr. Monroe requested is lag triangles detailing claims paid by month of incurral for each Care System for the two-year period ending 3/31/01. Such information appears to be part of claims experience and all related information received from carriers and claims administrators participating in the state group insurance plan. Therefore, based on section 13.67, and the fact that Commissioner Carter has determined that a release of these data will be detrimental, the data are not public. The second group of data Mr. Monroe requested is member exposure by month or employee count by month if member data is not available, for each Care System. Again, this information appears to fit within the parameter of what is protected by section 13.67. However, because the Commissioner is not entirely clear as to the definition of exposure in this context, it is possible that these are data that DOER alone has created and maintains, as opposed to data provided by carriers and claims administrators. If DOER received the data from carriers and claims representatives, they are properly classified pursuant to section 13.67. The third group of data Mr. Monroe requested is SEGIP requested reserves as of 3/31/01 and 12/31/00. Because DOER presumably received these data from carriers and/or claims administrators, the data appear to fall under the definition of section 13.67 and therefore are not public. The final data Mr. Monroe requested are copies of any actuarial reports detailing reserve development. Although these data seem to be related to claims, it is not clear whether they are data received from carriers and claims representatives or whether they are data that DOER has created and maintains. As stated above in reference to the second group of data, if DOER received the data from carriers and claims representatives, those data are properly classified pursuant to section 13.67. Opinion:Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue that Mr. Corwin raised is as follows:
Signed:
David F. Fisher
Dated: July 26, 2001 |
Response to data requests
Employee relations data (13.67)
