December 31, 2003; Minnesota Department of Human Services
12/31/2003 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:On November 12, 2003, IPAD received a letter from Rodger D. Robb. In his letter, Mr. Robb asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding his right to gain access to certain data maintained by the Minnesota Department of Human Services. In response to Mr. Robb's request, IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Kevin Goodno, Commissioner of the Department. The purposes of this letter, dated November 13, 2003, were to inform him of Mr. Robb's request and to ask him to provide information or support for the Department's position. On December 9, 2003, IPAD received a response from Commissioner Goodno. A summary of the facts of this matter follows. In a June 6, 2003, letter to the Human Resources Department of the Minnesota Sex Offender Treatment Program, Mr. Robb requested access to public data about a Department employee, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43. The Department provided some of the requested data. Subsequently, Mr. Robb wrote to Commissioner Goodno, in a letter dated September 8, 2003, and asked for access to the public personnel data that the Department had not provided in response to his earlier request. Commissioner Goodno wrote to Mr. Robb on September 23, 2003, and provided him with additional data. In his opinion request, Mr. Robb stated that Commissioner Goodno had provided him with much of the missing information but still missing was information regarding the existence and status of any complaints or charges against the employee: The 'cover sheet,' completely contrary to the statutory language [at section 13.43, subdivision 2(a)(4)] includes a blank line to indicate 'Final Disposition of any disciplinary action,' as outlined in Mn. Stat. section13.43, Subd. 2(a)(5). This then would not provide any information concerning the existence of complaints . . . regardless of whether the complaint . . . resulted in a disciplinary action. According to the 'cover sheet' provided me, the only thing I might know for sure (if this 'cover sheet' is accurate) is that [the employee] has had no 'final dispositions' for any 'disciplinary action.' A far cry from the existence of a complaint or charge. In his comments, Commissioner Goodno stated: The Department believes that it has complied with Chapter 13 and responded appropriately to Mr. Robb's request. The Department believes that its responses to Mr. Robb made it clear that there have been no complaints or disciplinary actions involving the particular employee in question, and, therefore, that there is no related data that can be provided for inspection. By way of background, because of the volume of requests of a similar nature received by the Department from participants in the Minnesota Sex Offender Treatment Program and from others seeking data about program staff, the Department has, over time, developed templates used in providing public data in response to such requests. The use of templates is intended and necessary to provide a prompt and efficient response to inquiries while at the same time allowing for efficient allocation of staff and other Department resources. The use of templates also allows the Department to readily track requests and responses. On September 23, 2003, in the second of two responses, the Department used a revised template to respond to Mr. Robb. In a field titled, 'Final Disposition of any disciplinary action' (emphasis added) the Department indicated 'None.' The intent of this response was to convey (1) that there have been no complaints or charges, no investigations, no disciplinary actions, no related final dispositions or settlements of disputes arising out of the employment relation [sic] involving the particular employee about whom Mr. Robb sought data, and no such activities are pending, and (2) therefore no data exists nor could be produced for inspection by Mr. Robb. Commissioner Goodno stated that the Department's communication to Mr. Robb could have been more precise, but the meaning of the Department's response is nevertheless clear when it is considered within the context of the entire template document. Issue:In his request for an opinion, Mr. Robb asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
Discussion:Data about public employees are classified at Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43. Pursuant to subdivision 2, certain personnel data are public; under subdivision 4, most other personnel data are private. In particular here, Mr. Robb requested access to the following public data, if any, related to and stemming from complaints and/or charges made about employees: the existence and status of any complaints or charges against the employee, regardless of whether the complaint or charge resulted in a disciplinary action; [See subdivision 2(a)(4)).] the final disposition of any disciplinary action together with the specific reasons for the action and data documenting the basis of the action, excluding data that would identify confidential sources who are employees of the public body. [See subdivision 2(a)(5).] Mr. Robb asked for access to most of the data elements that are public under section 13.43, subdivision 2 (a). The template the Department provided lists the data elements on the left, followed by the specific data on the employee. In four cases, the specific data portion reads none. For example, it did contain Final disposition of any disciplinary action: None. However, the template does not have any reference to the existence and/or status of any complaints or charges against the employee. In his comments, Commissioner Goodno stated that the Department believes that its responses to Mr. Robb made it clear that there have been no complaints or disciplinary actions involving the particular employee in question. (Commissioner Goodno did not address whether there have been any charges against the employee.) The Commissioner of Administration respectfully disagrees with Commissioner Goodno's position. The only data element that Mr. Robb asked for that is not on the template is the status of a complaint or charge, which is listed in section 13.43 as a separate data element from data that document the basis of final disciplinary action. Commissioner Goodno stated that the Department does not maintain any data concerning a complaint or charge against the employee. However, the statute contemplates circumstances in which a complaint or charge has been made against an employee, but there is no related final disciplinary action. In order to be clear, and consistent, the template should have included a statement like Status of complaint or charge: None, as is the case with other data elements that don't apply to this employee. The Commissioner has a final comment. The Department has decided that it can best meet its obligations to provide prompt access to public personnel data by using a template. The statute neither requires nor forbids the use of templates. However, the Department needs to take whatever steps are necessary to ensure that the templates contain all of the requested public data. Opinion:Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue raised by Mr. Robb is as follows:
Signed:
Brian J. Lamb
Dated: December 31, 2003 |
Personnel data
Status
