Opinion Library

To return to this list after selecting an opinion, click on the "View entire list" link above the opinion title.

RSS feed

Advisory Opinion 03-048

December 22, 2003; City of Saint Paul

12/22/2003 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 3, 2003, IPAD received a letter dated October 30, 2003, from Dennis Flaherty, Deputy Mayor of the City of Saint Paul. In his letter, Mr. Flaherty asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding the classification of certain data the City maintains.

A summary of the facts is as follows. In his letter to the Commissioner, Mr. Flaherty wrote:

On August 6, 2003 David Schecter of WCCO-TV requested certain interview notes concerning an allegation of sexual harassment....These notes had been the subject of a previous request by the Pioneer Press. In order to respond to the Pioneer Press request, the City obtained a Department of Administration Advisory Opinion 03-035. In compliance with that opinion, the City has released the interview notes, having first redacted the personal identifying information, upon several media requests including the request from WCCO-TV....You will note that one of the city employees, identified in Advisory Opinion 03-035 as the co-worker whose identifying information was redacted, worked in the Mayor's office and that person's job ended because the grant paying for it ended. In the redacted notes that the City released, the letter B was used in place of information that would identify the co-worker.

Thereafter, on October 20, 2003, Mr. Schecter made an additional data request for a list of people who've worked in the Mayor's office in the last 6 months in positions funded by grant money that no longer work in the office. ...Only one employee fits the parameters given by Mr. Schecter, so a response to the October 20, 2003, request will identify this employee as the co-worker discussed in the redacted notes.

...The October 20, 2003 request for the name of a public employee asks for what is usually public data. In this context however, releasing the name will also release private personnel data because it will specifically identify the co-worker as the person whose information initiated the investigation.

Issue:

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

Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, what is the classification of the following data that the City of Saint Paul maintains: a list of people who have worked in the City of Saint Paul Mayor's office in the last six months in positions funded by grant money that no longer work in the office?

Discussion:

Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 1, government data are public unless otherwise classified.

Data on individuals collected and maintained because an individual is or was an employee or volunteer are classified pursuant to section 13.43, personnel data. Subdivision 2 of section 13.43 lists the types of personnel data that are public. Subdivision 4 of section 13.43 classifies most other types of personnel data as private. Data on individuals is defined as all government data in which any individual is or can be identified as the subject of the data, unless the appearance of the name or other identifying data clearly can be demonstrated to be only incidental to the data. (See section 13.02, subdivision 5.)

The question before the Commissioner is whether the City may release the names of any individuals who have worked in the Mayor's office in the last 6 months in positions funded by grant money that no longer work in the office. The Commissioner does not have enough information to determine whether data about the individual in question, hereinafter referred to as X, are classified pursuant to section 13.43 or classified pursuant to the general presumption in section 13.03, subdivision 1. The key is whether the data about X fit within the definition of section 13.43. If so, pursuant to section 13.43, subdivision 2, the fact that an individual is or was employed by a government entity is public. That information, coupled with the fact that an employee's first and last date of employment are public, would suggest that X's name connected to his/her first/last dates of employment are public. The additional fact that grant money paid for X's employment is also obtainable pursuant to either section 13.43 or section 13.03, subdivision 1.

If data about X are not classified pursuant to section 13.43, they are presumed public.

Thus, it appears the data Mr. Schecter requested are public regardless of the Chapter 13 provision that classifies the data about X.

The following note is in order. The Commissioner acknowledges that, according to Mr. Flaherty, a release of the data will provide X's identity to Mr. Schecter. However, based on the information the City provided, the reason Mr. Schecter will learn X's identity is because Mr. Flaherty divulged that fact in his opinion request and sent a copy to Mr. Schecter.

Opinion:

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

Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, the following data maintained by the City of Saint Paul are public: a list of people who have worked in the City of Saint Paul Mayor's office in the last six months in positions funded by grant money that no longer work in the office.

Signed:

Brian J. Lamb
Commissioner

Dated: December 22, 2003

Personnel data

Employee name