Primary navigation

    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 96-039

    August 27, 1996; School District 701 (Hibbing)

    8/27/1996 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 person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of PIPA and, with the exception of any data that are not public, are available for public access.

    On July 10, 1996, PIPA received a letter dated June 6, 1996, from M's parents. In their letter, M's parents requested that the Commissioner issue an advisory opinion regarding a possible inappropriate dissemination of data about their child by the Hibbing School District, #701, hereinafter District 701.

    In response to M's parents' request, PIPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Willis Schoeb, Superintendent of District 701. The purposes of this letter, dated July 16, 1996, were to inform Mr. Schoeb of M's parents' request, and to ask him or District 701's attorney to provide information or support for District 701's position. On July 25, 1996, PIPA received a response dated July 24, 1996, from Paul Wojciak, Attorney for District 701. (Shortly thereafter,

    Mr. Wojciak contacted PIPA and requested additional time so that he could send supplementary materials. PIPA agreed and on August 7, 1996, PIPA received additional information from Mr. Wojciak.

    A summary of the facts surrounding this matter is as follows. In their request, M's parents wrote:

    On March 25, 1996, a copy of our [child's] disciplinary record was given to [an Assistant St. Louis County Attorney], apparently upon [his/her] verbal request. [S/he] did not submit a subpoena to obtain this record. Furthermore, this record was obtained without any educational interest by [the Assistant County Attorney]. We were informed by [the Assistant County Attorney] that [s/he] had obtained [M's] disciplinary record in a letter dated March 26, 1996 and received March 27, 1996....As for the complaint against Hibbing Schools ISD #701, they provided a copy of the disciplinary record without receiving a subpoena.

    In his July 24, 1996, response to M's parents' opinion request, Mr. Wojciak stated:

    ...the information provided to the County Attorney's office...was provided during the course of an investigation and preparation for and prosecution of a criminal offense which occurred on school grounds....[the Assistant County Attorney] asked for and received...a document entitled Conduct Report relating to [M].

    In his August 6, 1996, addendum, Mr. Wojciak submitted a copy of the report released by District 701 to the Assistant St. Louis County Attorney.


    Issue:

    In their request for an opinion, M's parents asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:

    Did Hibbing Independent School District 701 violate M's rights, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.32, by improperly disseminating educational data about M?


    Discussion:

    Educational data maintained by public educational agencies or institutions are classified by Minnesota Statutes Section 13.32. Pursuant to Subdivision 1 (a) of Section 13.32, educational data are data on individuals maintained by a public educational agency or institution which relate to a student. Pursuant to Subdivision 3 of Section 13.32, educational data are private data on individuals and may be disclosed only as specified in Section 13.32. There apparently is no dispute that the data contained in M's disciplinary report are educational data for the purposes of Chapter 13. Therefore, those data are private and can be disclosed only under very limited circumstances.

    M's parents stated that District 701 provided a copy of M's disciplinary record to an Assistant St. Louis County Attorney. M's parents also stated the attorney had no educational interest in the disciplinary record and that s/he obtained the record without having submitted a subpoena.

    In his response, Mr. Wojciak wrote:

    ...[the disciplinary report] was provided during the course of an investigation and preparation for and prosecution of a criminal offense which occurred on school grounds. The request for information made by [the Assistant County Attorney] to [a District 701 counselor] was prompted by an inquiry by [M's parents] as to why the second individual was not being treated in the same manner as [A]. In order to respond to that request, [the Assistant County Attorney] asked for and received a copy...as well as a document entitled Conduct Report relating to [A]...It is my understanding in discussing this matter with [the Assistant County Attorney] that the dissemination of this Conduct Report was limited to the County Attorney's office and to inclusion in the Juvenile Court file.

    Based on Mr. Wojciak's comments, it is unclear to the Commissioner why District 701 determined that a release of M's disciplinary record to the Assistant County Attorney was appropriate and permitted under Chapter 13. As stated previously, there are circumstances under which a dissemination of private educational data is permitted. (See Section 13.32, subdivisions 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7.) However, in his letter, Mr. Wojciak did not suggest that any of the authorizations provided in Section 13.32 apply to the case-at-hand. In addition, based on the documentation submitted by both M's parents and Mr. Wojciak, the Commissioner is not independently able to find a reason that would make District 701's release of the private educational data about A, specifically a history of school disciplinary actions, permissible under Chapter 13. Therefore, the Commissioner is left to conclude that the release of M's disciplinary record was not an authorized dissemination of private data.

    Opinion:


    Based on the correspondence in this matter, my opinion on the issue raised by M's parents is as follows:

    Based on the information provided by both M's parents and District 701, the District violated Minnesota Statutes Section 13.32 when it released private educational data about A to an Assistant St. Louis County Attorney.


    Signed:

    Elaine S. Hansen
    Commissioner

    Dated: August 27, 1996


    Educational data

    County attorney

    back to top