May 14, 1998; City of Barnesville
5/14/1998 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 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, except for any data classified as not public, are available for public access. On March 3, 1998, PIPA received a letter dated February 27, 1998, from James Nicolai, an attorney representing the City of Barnesville. In his letter, Mr. Nicolai requested that the Commissioner issue an opinion regarding the classification of certain personnel data maintained by the City. Upon discussions with PIPA staff, the two issues submitted by Mr. Nicolai were combined. A summary of the facts is as follows. The City of Barnesville became involved in a dispute with one of its employees. A member of the public then made a request for information relating to the dispute. The City's question to the Commissioner is whether any or how much of the data related to the dispute must be released to the requestor. On March 9, 1998, PIPA received a letter dated March 5, 1998, from Randolph Stefanson, an attorney for the affected city employee. In his letter, Mr. Stefanson argued that because no final disposition has been reached, only very limited data regarding the dispute are public. Issue:In his request for an opinion, Mr. Nicolai asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
Discussion:Minnesota Statutes Section 13.43 provides that certain government data about current and former employees are public, and that all other personnel data are private. Pursuant to Subdivision 2 (a) of Section 13.43, the following data are public: (4) the existence and status of any complaints or charges against the employee, regardless of whether the complaint or charge resulted in a disciplinary action; (5) the final disposition of any disciplinary action together with the specific reasons for the action and data documenting the basis of the action, excluding data that would identify confidential sources who are employees of the public body; Subdivision 2 (b), in part, provides: For purposes of this subdivision, a final disposition occurs when the state agency, statewide system, or political subdivision makes its final decision about the disciplinary action, regardless of the possibility of any later proceedings or court proceedings. In the case of arbitration proceedings arising under collective bargaining agreements, a final disposition occurs at the conclusion of the arbitration proceedings, or upon the failure of the employee to elect arbitration within the time provided by the collective bargaining agreement. The classification of data relating to complaints or charges against an employee is dependent upon whether 1) the entity has taken disciplinary action and 2) there has been a final disposition of the disciplinary action. If no disciplinary action was taken, only limited data regarding the incident are public, i.e., the name of the employee, whether a complaint or charge exists, and the status of the handling of the complaint or charge. (See Section 13.43, subdivision 2 (a) (1) and (4).) If disciplinary action was taken but there was no final disposition, only the same limited data are public. But, if disciplinary action was taken and there was a final disposition, additional data become public. (See Section 13.43, subdivision 2 (a) (5).) In the present case, a dispute arose between the City and one of its employees. The City initiated action pending further investigation to resolve the dispute but lifted that action two days later and placed the employee on paid medical leave during which certain conditions were to be met. The first issue to be resolved is whether the City's action constitutes a disciplinary action. Based on language in the 1994 City of Barnesville Personnel Policies, it appears that it does not. Articles 9 and 10 of this document discuss disciplinary action and grievance/appeal procedures, respectively. According to Article 9, if the City had disciplined the employee, it was to have explained, in a written communication to the employee and the Business Supervisor, the circumstances that resulted in the discipline. The City did not provide information to the Commissioner indicating that this had occurred. Therefore, it does not appear the employee was disciplined. Furthermore, according to a letter from the City to the employee's attorney, although disciplinary action against the employee was being contemplated pending further investigation, the City lifted the action two days later and placed the employee on medical leave. Based on this scenario, it does not appear there was a final decision of any disciplinary action. Thus, because there was no action taken against the employee that falls within the definition of discipline as stated in City's own personnel policy, and because there was no final disposition of a disciplinary action, only the following data are public: the name of the employee; and the existence and status of the City's handling of any complaint or charge against the employee, regardless of whether the complaint or charge resulted in a disciplinary action. Opinion:Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue raised by Mr. Nicolai is as follows:
Signed:
Elaine S. Hansen
Dated: May 14, 1998 |
Personnel data
Defined
