Note: In December 1999, staff of the Information Policy Analysis Division, on behalf of the Commissioner, redacted not public data from this opinion. The redaction was necessary to bring the data in the opinion into compliance with amendments the Legislature made to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.072, the advisory opinion enabling legislation

Facts and Procedural History:

On September 13, 1994, PIPA received a letter from X. In this letter X described attempts by him to get access to certain data maintained about his minor child by Independent School District Number 877, the Buffalo School District and hereinafter District. After describing what he believed to be violations of the rights conferred on him and his minor child by the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, Chapter 13 of Minnesota Statutes and hereinafter Act or Chapter 13, X asked the Commissioner to issue an opinion concerning the issues stated in the issue section below.

Specifically, X alleged the following. One June 6, 1994, during a consultation with a psychologist who was evaluating X's child, X was shown a copy of a report sent to the psychologist by Buffalo High School. This report, entitled Activity Tracker Report, and described by X as a computer printout, contained data concerning disciplinary actions taken against the child by the District. After seeing this report, X went to Buffalo High School and asked to inspect and copy all data the school was maintaining about his child. This request was made on June 6, 1994.

On June 9, 1994, X received some data from the District. He identified certain items that he thought were missing, including a copy of the Activity Tracker Report and the form used to release data to the psychologist, and renewed his request to gain access to all data. On June 15, 1994, he received additional data from the District including a copy of a computer printout entitled Activity Tracker Report that was dated June 8, 1994. Although this printout contained some of the same data X had seen on the Activity Tracker Report in the possession of the psychologist, it did not contain all of the data that appeared on the version X had seen in the psychologist's office.

X continued his discussions with the District and with the private psychologist about gaining access to data concerning his child and particularly access to data that the District had allegedly sent to the psychologist. On September 7, 1994, X received a letter from the District. Enclosed with that letter were additional data, including a copy of a computerized Activity Tracker Report, dated May 18, 1994, that contained the same data as the copy of this report that X alleges was sent to the psychologist by the District. At this time, the District also provided X with a copy of a consent for release of data form, signed by the child's mother, that authorized release of educational data to the private psychologist.

In response to X's request for an opinion, PIPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Dr. Darrell Miller, Superintendent of Schools for the District. The purposes of this letter, dated September 16, 1994, were to inform Dr. Miller of X's request, to provide a copy of the request to him, to ask Dr. Miller to provide information or support for the District's position and to inform him of the date by which the Commissioner was required to issue this opinion. (In subsequent correspondence to Dr. Miller and X, the Commissioner notified them that she would be taking a portion of the additional 30 days allowed by the opinion statute to issue this opinion.)

On October 4, 1994, via facsimile transmission, PIPA received a response from Ms. Ann R. Goering and Mr. Paul C. Ratwik, attorneys for the District. As they have on previous occasions, involving requests for opinions about their clients, these attorneys questioned the Commissioner's authority to issue opinions, criticized the statement of the issues to be addressed and conditioned their response on being able to restate the issues in factually neutral and abstract terms and to answer those issues only as generalities. The Commissioner has addressed these questions and concerns in previous opinions and will not restate her position here.

In summary, the District stated its position as follows. There is nothing in Chapter 13 that prohibits a school district from altering or disposing of educational data. Nothing in Chapter 13 requires a school district to maintain copies of data it releases to third parties. Parents do have the right to request and to gain access to educational data regarding their children. A school district must respond to that request within the time periods established by Section 13.04, subdivision 3, of the Act. If a district does not store data, it is not required to provide parents with access to the data.

Issues:

Discussion:

According to X, he requested access to all data about his child on June 6, 1994. When he did not receive certain data that he believed the District to be retaining about his child, he specifically identified those data and asked for access on July 3, 1994. The District did not provide those data, consisting of the full version of the Activity Tracker Report Form and the consent for release of information signed by the child's mother, until September 7, 1994. The District was required to give X access to data immediately or within five days of his initial request for data on June 6, 1994. This is the result dictated by Section 13.04, subdivision 3.

In response to his general request on June 6, 1994, the District did not provide the two specific items described above until 64 working days after his request. In response to his July 3, 1994, letter to the District, in which he specifically identified items of data he felt that the District was withholding from him, it took the District approximately 45 working days to provide the two items to him. Clearly, X did not receive the data he requested within the time frames required by Minnesota Statutes Section 13.04, subdivision 3.

If X's allegations are accepted, the fact that he received two different versions of the Activity Tracker Report raises an additional problem. At some point, in addition to asking for all data about his child, he specifically identified the Activity Tracker Report as a report of particular interest to him and asked to receive a copy of it. He did receive a copy of this report, which was a computer printout and carried a date of June 8, 1994. However, after examining this report, he was of the opinion that, even though it carried the same title as a similar report he had seen in the offices of the psychologist and included some of the same data, it was not the version in the possession of the psychologist because that version of the report had additional data about his child. The District did not provide to X the May 19, 1994, version of the report, that appears to be the same version as supplied to the psychologist, until September 7, 1994.

In its response, the District declined to comment in detail on this issue. There are references in the response to a general position that a school district does not have to provide private data to a parent if the data are not being stored by the District. However, in this particular instance, it appears that the District may have had the full set of data constituting the Activity Tracker Report on its computer throughout the period of time during which X was seeking access to all data about his child. At some point, it appears that they may have provided him with a partial printout of this report. It was only after his persistent inquiries, that the District provided him with a copy of the version previously provided to the psychologist. If the District were not keeping the full set of data on the District computer or in some other form, they would not have been ultimately able to provide X with a duplicate version as provided to the psychologist. It is possible that they retrieved a copy from the psychologist but there is no indication of that in their response.

This history, if correct, raises the specter of a District using the power of its computerized systems to provide different versions of a set of data to a parent than are being provided to others. If that is the case, and it must be emphasized that the District has admitted to none of the factual allegations raised by X, this practice would effectively deny a data subject, or in the case of a minor, the parents of that data subject, access to all of the educational data maintained by a school district. Section 13.04, subdivision 3, when read in conjunction with Sections 13.02, subdivision 8 and 13.32, gives the parent of a minor access to all educational data about that minor. If a district were to respond to a parent's request for access to all data about his or her child by providing a printout of selected computerized data, while withholding other data about the minor, the district would not be in compliance with Section 13.04, subdivision 3.

Opinion: