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 98-002

January 23, 1998; Clay County

1/23/1998 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 government entity that requested this opinion is 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 December 8, 1997, PIPA received a letter from Charles (Casey) Brantner, Chair of the Clay County Board of Commissioners. In his letter, Mr. Brantner requested that the Commissioner issue an opinion regarding the classification of certain data maintained by Clay County. Mr. Brantner enclosed a copy of the document in question. A summary of the detailed facts of this matter follows.

In June 1997, Clay County hired a consultant to assist with conflict resolution and personnel management issues in the County Attorney's office. After conducting interviews with the County Attorney and his staff, the consultant prepared a report, the Staff Assessment and Action Plan.

Issue:

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

What is the classification of the data contained in the Clay County Staff Assessment and Action Plan?

Discussion:

According to information provided to the Commissioner, the Clay County Attorney, an elected official, is an employee of the County, as are members of his staff. Minnesota Statutes Section 13.43 classifies data about current or former employees of a public entity such as the County. According to Section 13.43, subdivisions 2 and 4, certain specific personnel data are private, and all other personnel data are public.

Upon review of the consultant's report, it is evident that it contains both public and private data. Some of the data in the report are not data on individuals (see Section 13.02, subdivision 5.) For example, the consultant's description of her methodology, and list of interview questions, are not data that identify an individual. The Commissioner is unaware of any provision of state or federal law that would classify those data as nonpublic; therefore, the data are public (see Section 13.03, subdivision 1.)

Some of the data in the report are in the form of observations and comments about the operation of the County Attorney's office, from which an individual employee may or may not be identified. To the extent that those data do not or could not identify an individual employee, those data are also public. The Commissioner is cognizant that it would be helpful to the County if this opinion could identify more specifically which data are public and which are not. However, the Commissioner lacks sufficient information to determine whether or not those data identify an individual employee.

The balance of the data in the report appear to be private personnel data. For example, most of the data constitute comments about the County Attorney. Those data are not the type of data classified as public under Section 13.43, subdivision 2. An exception would be if any of the data reflected complaints or charges against an employee, or are data documenting the basis of final disciplinary action taken against an employee.

The last page of the report is the County Attorney's office Proposed Action Plan. That page contains data about specific employees and general statements or descriptions of the operation of the office. To the extent that the data are performance-related data about an employee - for example, numbers 1 and 2 in the first section of the plan - the data are private. To the extent the data describe the general operation of the office - for example, number 3 in the first section - those data are not personnel data and are therefore public.

Opinion:

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

The Clay County Staff Assessment and Action Plan contains both public and private data. Data in the report that identify, or could identify, a County employee are private, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.43, subdivision 4.

Signed:

Elaine S. Hansen
Commissioner

Dated: January 23, 1998

Personnel data

Consultants

Multiple data subjects