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 00-001

January 6, 2000; City of Tyler

1/6/2001 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 IPA and, except for any data classified as not public, are available for public access.

On November 15, 1999, IPA received a letter dated November 10, 1999, from Leland Bush, an attorney representing the City of Tyler. In his letter, Mr. Bush asked the Commissioner to issue an opinion regarding the treatment of certain data that are to be discussed in an open meeting.

A summary of the facts that Mr. Bush submitted is as follows. The City is a past participant in a Department of Trade and Economic Development Housing Rehabilitation Loan Program. Consequently, the City has issued a variety of Housing Rehabilitation Contracts to homeowners. The City needs to discuss various loans and applicants at a City Council meeting. Mr. Bush described some of the circumstances that the City may need to discuss:

A homeowner and program participant who requests to have his loan totally or partially forgiven, even though under the terms of the loan document it would not be eligible for that treatment. For example, the following:

A homeowner who vacated his home before the requisite waiting period because of medical reasons;
A homeowner who has violated the terms of the agreement and vacated the home prematurely, but did not inform the City, and the requisite occupancy period has now expired;
A homeowner who is inquiring about the prospect of repaying the loan, but repaying the loan over time rather than in a lump sum;
A homeowner who violates the terms of the grant/loan agreement and intends to pay off the loan in full, but requests that the City grant a Satisfaction of Mortgage;
A homeowner who is refinancing his loan, and seeks to obtain a subordination of his existing loan with the City.

Mr. Bush further wrote, The City is concerned on one hand about its obligation to comply with the requirements of the open meeting law, and on the other hand to comply with the requirements of protecting the privacy of the program participants.

Issue:

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

Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, and Minnesota Statutes, section 471.705, would it violate the rights of data subjects if the City of Tyler City Council discussed certain data relating to a housing rehabilitation loan program at a City Council meeting open to the public?

Discussion:

Meetings of the Tyler City Council are subject to the Open Meeting Law, Minnesota Statutes, section 471.705. Subdivision 1d of section 471.705 provides for the treatment of not public data that are discussed at a public meeting. Clause (a) states:

Except as provided in this section, meetings may not be closed to discuss data that are not public data. Data that are not public data may be discussed at a meeting subject to this section without liability or penalty, if the disclosure relates to a matter within the scope of the public body's authority and is reasonably necessary to conduct the business or agenda item before the public body. Data discussed at an open meeting retain the data's original classification; however, a record of the meeting, regardless of form, shall be public.

The remainder of section 471.705, subdivision 1d, sets forth the various situations in which it is legal to close a public meeting. Clause (b) states that any portion of a meeting must be closed if expressly required by other law or if the following types of data are discussed: (1) identifying data about alleged victims or reporters of criminal sexual conduct, domestic abuse, or maltreatment of minors or vulnerable adults; (2) active investigative data or internal affairs data relating to allegations of law enforcement personnel misconduct; or (3) not public educational, health, medical, welfare, or mental health data.

Clause (c) states that a public body must close one or more meetings for preliminary consideration of allegations or charges against an individual subject to its authority. Clause (d) states that a public body may close a meeting to evaluate the performance of an individual who is subject to its authority. Clause (e) states that meetings may be closed if expressly authorized by statute or permitted by the attorney-client privilege.

Based on the information Mr. Bush provided, it appears that some of the data in question are classified as private pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.31, benefit data. However, even if these housing rehabilitation loan data are not public, the City cannot close a meeting to discuss them; they do not fit into any of the exceptions outlined in section 471.705, subdivision 1d.

Opinion:

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

Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, and Minnesota Statutes, section 471.705, it would not violate the rights of data subjects if the City of Tyler City Council discussed certain data relating to a housing rehabilitation loan program at a City Council meeting open to the public.

Signed:

David F. Fisher
Commissioner

Dated: January 6, 2001

Closed meetings

Open Meeting Law

Closed meetings