August 7, 2003; School District 832 (Mahtomedi)
8/7/2003 10:18:43 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 July 18, 2003, IPAD received a letter from X. In this letter, X asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding his/her right to gain access to private data maintained by Independent School District 832, Mahtomedi. In response to X's request, IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Mark Wolak, District Superintendent. The purposes of this letter, dated July 22, 2003, were to inform him of X's request and to ask him to provide information or support for the District's position. On July 29, 2003, IPAD received a response from Karen P. Kepple, attorney for the District. A summary of the facts of this matter follows. X is the parent of a former District student, Y. In an e-mail, fax and letter to Mr. Wolak dated June 27, 2003, X requested the opportunity to review all of the school records the district currently maintains on [Y.] Please provide me with a list of possible dates, times and location(s) that I may come in and review [Y's] records. According to X, the District responded via U.S. mail on July 15, 2003. X stated: [t]he envelope was metered and postmarked July 14, 2003 but the letter was dated July 11, 2003. . . . X also stated: Mahtomedi's responsible authority did not provide a time for me to review [Y's] records within the [Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13] timelines, 10 days, of my requesting such access. In her response to the Commissioner, Ms. Kepple stated: Superintendent Mark Wolak responded to the parent's letter on July 11, 2003. The parent's request for data inspection was sent by email transmission late in the afternoon on Friday, June 27, 2003. Dr. Wolak was out of the office from June 30, 2003 through July 3, 2003 and the office was, of course, closed for the national Fourth of July holiday until Monday, July 7, 2003. Dr. Wolak responded to the request with a letter written within 4 days upon his return to the office after a brief vacation and national holiday. There is nothing in the statute which requires, nor does the parent allege, that data inspection and review must occur within 10 days of a request, but rather, only that the school district must respond to the request within 10 days. Given Dr. Wolak's vacation and the intervening Fourth of July, Dr. Wolak responded in a reasonably timely fashion, within 4 days after he received the parent's letter. Issue:In his/her request for an opinion, X asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
Discussion:Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.04, subdivision 3, when an individual requests access to data of which s/he is the subject, the government entity is required to provide access to the data immediately, if possible, or within ten days of the date of the request, excluding Saturdays, Sundays and legal holidays, if immediate compliance is not possible. Provisions of both Minnesota and federal law govern access to data about students. Section 13.32 classifies data relating to students (termed educational data ) and incorporates by reference much of the federal Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), 20 U.S.C. section1232g, and its implementing Rules, 34 CFR Part 99. Subject to limited exceptions, educational data (termed education records under FERPA) are private and may not be released without consent. Under both state and federal law, parents are generally entitled to gain access to the educational data of their minor children. (See FERPA, section 1232g(a)(1)(A), Minnesota Statutes section 13.02, subdivision 8, and Minnesota Rules Part 1205.0500, subpart 4, for more information and some exceptions.) The Commissioner has no information to suggest that X is precluded from gaining access to data about Y. X asked to inspect educational data about Y, and asked the District to provide possible dates, times and location(s) for that inspection. The District mailed its response to X on July 14, 2003, which s/he received on July 15, 2003. Excluding Saturdays, Sundays and legal holidays, the District was required to provide X with access to data about Y immediately, if possible, or by July 14, 2003. Ms. Kepple stated that the District's response was timely because the Superintendent was out of the office on vacation. The Commissioner understands the compelling rationale presented by the District, but respectfully disagrees that it is compliant with the requirements of the statute. As he opined in Advisory Opinion 03-030, which also involved X and the District: The Commissioner acknowledges that circumstances can arise that make it more difficult for government entities to fulfill their duties under Chapter 13. Nevertheless, the District was obligated, per section 13.04, subdivision 3, to provide X with access to the data requested within ten working days. The statute does not provide additional time for mitigating circumstances. Ms. Kepple stated that an immediate response was not possible, because the person handling yearbook requests was not available shortly after the District received X's request. Compliance with Chapter 13 should not depend upon whether or not one specific person is available to respond to a data request. Government entities must enact policies and procedures for managing government data so that they are able to respond properly within the statutory time frames, with the personnel available when they receive a data request. Here, the District was obligated to provide X with access to data about Y immediately or at least by July 14, 2003, not simply mail its response by that date. Opinion:Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue that Ms. Kepple raised is as follows:
Signed: Brian J. Lamb
Dated: August 7, 2003 |
Data subjects
Response to data requests
Timely response required, access immediately or within ten business days