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:

Some time ago, X became concerned that the District was disseminating incorrect data concerning the circumstances of his departure from employment with the District. In particular, X stated that on October 21, 1993, a company checking X's employment history was told that X had been terminated and dismissed by the St. Paul schools and would not be rehired. After receiving that information, X delivered a letter, dated December 6, 1993, to the District personnel office. In this letter, X asked to see his personnel file and also stated his interest in seeing any information regarding himself stored on computers. He also asked that he be given hard copies of the materials he was requesting.

After further discussion and correspondence with various representatives of the District, Mr. Phillip D. Penn, the District's Director of Human Resources, on January 10, 1994, provided X with two printouts of data maintained about him. In viewing these printouts, X was particularly interested in any data that described the nature of his separation from employment with the District. These two printouts, one of which has a printed title Payroll Master Dummy and the other of which is titled Personnel Master Dummy, contained a variety of data about X which are presented in the form of a variety of labels, codes and mnemonics. One of the items of data is labeled PER and carries a code number of 57. This label and number appear on both the Personnel Master Dummy and Payroll Master Dummy printouts.

X was of the opinion that he had not gotten all data kept about him and continued to request access to personnel data maintained about him with particular reference to computerized data. On February 9, 1994, X met with a representative of the District's human resources division who showed him computer display terminal screens containing personnel data. This employee provided X with what appear to be printouts from these computer screens. (These items carry a printed notation of screen and the handwritten labels Employee Personnel Maintenance and Employee Payroll Maintenance. These printouts contain fewer computer codes, read more like English than the printouts received on January 10 and are personnel data about X. The Personnel Maintenance printout has a data field labeled PERS STATUS that is followed by a code number 64 and the notation Terminated - Volunta (sic). The next line below in this printout has a field labeled PREV STATUS that is followed by a code number 47 and the notation Terminated - Persona (sic). The Payroll Maintenance printout has a data field labeled PAY STATUS: that is followed by the notation T Terminated. This same line contains another field labeled PERS STATUS: followed by a code number 64 and the notation Terminated - VO (sic).

On receipt of this second set of printouts, X began raising questions with the District as to changes made to the codes. He requested any data maintained by the District that would document when and who made those changes. In a letter dated February 25, 1994, Mr. Penn informed X that his request had been discussed with the District's data processing employees. According to Mr. Penn, those employees stated that the fields described above . . . are status fields and any changes to status fields, whatever they happen to be, are not retained or stored as historical information. Mr. Penn also told X that the printouts he had received on January 10, 1994, were printouts from the same computer system that X had viewed on a computer display screen on February 9, 1994.

In his letter to the Commissioner, X disputed the statements made by Mr. Penn about the District's retention of data on the computer system that would state when and by whom a change to a status field had been made. According to X, he had been told by Ms. Judy McDonald that a record of transactions involving changes made to personnel and payroll data is maintained on computer tape that is in storage. X described Ms. McDonald as a computer personnel person for Metro II, the organization that provides computer services to the District.

After reciting the history of his dispute with the District, X asked that Commissioner provide an opinion concerning the issues summarized below.

In response to X's request, PIPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Dr. Curman Gaines, the Superintendent of the District. The purposes of this letter were to inform Dr. Gaines of X's request, to provide a copy of the request to him, to ask Dr. Gaines or the District's attorney 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, both Dr. Gaines and X were informed that the Commissioner would be taking additional time, beyond the initial twenty day period, to issue this opinion.)

On September 2, 1994, PIPA received a response from Mr. Jeffrey G. Lalla, the General Counsel for the District. In his response, Mr. Lalla provided information, a summary of which follows.

Mr. Lalla provided a brief history of the District's disagreement with X. Mr. Lalla explained that the District is a member of a consortium of school districts that is a joint powers entity bearing the name of Metro II. Metro II's function is to provide data processing services to the members of the consortium. He reviewed the history of Metro II's work to collate personnel data codes from the various school districts into one system. According to Mr. Lalla, one of the purposes of this collation of codes was to maintain, for historical purposes, each of the particular school districts' prior reference coding.

Mr. Lalla enclosed a printout that contained the Metro II Tables-Personnel Status by Code. This table contains the summary of personnel status codes used in the personnel record keeping system operated by Metro II and used by the District. On the Tables printout provided by Mr. Lalla, the code number 57 is followed by the notation NOT REHIRED / DISMISSAL. According to Mr. Lalla, the code number 57 is one example of a code collated by Metro II. He then stated that: The phrase 'not rehired/dismissal' is a code phrase which prior to the formation of Metro II had never been utilized by the District and even today is not utilized nor does it make any sense to apply to the personnel practices of the District.

Mr. Lalla explained that on January 4, 1994, X was provided with hard copies of computerized data maintained about him. (Note: the actual date of this meeting was January 10, 1994. In his original submission to the Commissioner, X used the January 4 date. In a subsequent letter he noted his error and corrected the date to January 10, 1994. The actual date of January 10 is used throughout the balance of this opinion. Mr. Lalla appears to be using the incorrect date originally provided by X.) These hard copies contained a personnel status code of PER 57 and a pay status code of T TERMINATED. In the February 9, 1994, meeting with the District human resources employee, Mr. Lalla pointed out that X received another hard copy of computerized data that indicates a pay status code of T TERMINATED and a personnel status code of 64 TERMINATED.

Mr. Lalla summarized his view of X's dispute with the District as one that involves issues of whether or not X's pay and/or personnel status codes were changed some time between October 20, 1993, and January 10, 1994, and whether the District has refused to give X the pay status code contained in the District computers prior to the perceived change. Mr. Lalla acknowledged that the District had changed X's personnel status code. However, Mr. Lalla pointed out, by reference to Mr. Penn's letter of February 25, 1994, the initial personnel status code cannot now be retrieved. Mr. Lalla pointed out that the change to the personnel status code was not made between October 20, 1993 and January 10, 1994. According to him, the change was actually made between January 10, 1994, and February 9, 1994. Mr. Lalla stated that X was provided with the hard copy of the data that was stored on the computer on January 10, 1994, and in that copy he received the data as it originally existed.

Issues:

Discussion:

On January 10, 1994, approximately 22 working days after X asked to see his personnel file, the District provided him with the Payroll and Personnel Master Dummy printouts described above. These printouts both contain a personnel status code number of 57. According to the table of personnel status codes provided by the District, the numerical personnel status code 57 means Terminated - Not rehired/dismissal. The fact that this is the code that appears on the personnel data provided to X is very puzzling in the light of Mr. Lalla's assertion that the code phrase not rehired/dismissal has never been, either now or in the past, used by the District.

[It is interesting to note that the District's computer printout, that lists the personnel status codes, uses language that states that for the wide variety of reasons, including travel, death, other employment and so forth, that when employees leave the employment of the District, the employee has been terminated. Given the normal understanding of the word terminated and the District's potential exposure to liability for providing inaccurate or incomplete data about an employee's personnel status, the District may wish to examine what seems to be an excessive and situationally inappropriate use of the word terminated. ]

Both the Payroll and Personnel Master Dummy printouts provided to X on January 10, 1994, are clearly labeled at the top left side of the printout with the printed words and numbers District 625 - 625, the numerical designation of the District, and that label is followed by the words St. Paul Schools. These printouts were provided by a representative of the District to X, in response to his request for access to his personnel file. The appearance of the code number 57 on these printouts clearly indicates that, as of January 10, 1994, the District was utilizing the code number 57, that means terminate - not rehired/dismissed, to communicate a former employee's personnel status.

Subsequently, X was provided with another set of printouts that reflected data that he viewed on a video display terminal operated by a human resources employee of the District. As noted earlier, these printouts have an entirely different appearance than the Dummys provided to X on January 10, 1994. On these printouts, the personnel status code is the number 64. The table of personnel status codes indicates that the number 64 means terminated - voluntary quit. X believes that the personnel status code was changed from 57 to 64 sometime after October 21, 1993. There is no disagreement on this issue between the District and X. Mr. Lalla admitted that the printouts provided to X on January 10, 1994 carried the code number 57 and the printouts provided on February 9, 1994, carried the code number 64. Mr. Lalla concludes that this means that the codes were changed but that they were changed between January 10, 1994 and February 9, 1994.

What is clear from the information provided to the Commissioner is that the two printouts, labeled Personnel and Payroll Master Dummy, provided to X indicate that a computerized file used by the District carried the number code 57 to describe X's personnel status. Equally clear is that the printouts X received on February 9, 1994, indicate that a computerized file used by the District carried a code number 64 to describe X's personnel status. However, in addition to the different personnel status codes, there are significant differences in the size, physical appearance, layout, coding structure and use of language between the Master Dummy printouts and the Maintenance printouts. The differences are such that they raise the possibility that X may have been provided with printouts from two entirely difference files or data bases maintained by the District.

If X has not been provided with data from two different files, the District should take whatever steps are reasonable to reassure X that the only personnel status code that the District is maintaining about him is the correct code. One possible method of reassurance is to provide X with access to the data from whatever file is used to print the Master Dummy files. Until something like that is done, X will not know if he has actually gained access to the data that are currently retained about him in the District's computers. Clearly, as a subject of private and public personnel data maintained about him by the District, X has the right to gain access to that data. (See Minnesota Statutes Sections 13.04, subdivision 3 and 13.43.)

X has also raised the issue of whether he can gain access to data that was maintained on the District's computers at a certain point in time, specifically October 21, 1993. As any data maintained about him by the District are either private or public personnel data, he is entitled to gain access to the data if the District is able to actually isolate the data that were maintained about X by the District's computers on October 21, 1993. In regard to this request, X has been told by Mr. Penn that access to data about X, as it was kept on the District's computers on a specific date in the past, is not possible. Mr. Lalla reiterated that position in his response to the Commissioner. However, X has been told by either a District or Metro II employee, who he describes as a computer personnel person, that computerized historical data are available. That is a possibility. In some computer systems, electronic copies of all files are made on a daily basis. This is done for purposes of system backup and restoration of system files in the event of a computer crash.

These computerized historical files may be available for certain dates in the past from the District itself or from Metro II, the entity that provides the District computer services. It appears from the information provided that computer personnel of the District and its service entity are telling the District and X contradictory things. To facilitate X's access to historical computerized personnel data that exist about him, or to reassure him that these data actually do not exist, the District should bring the computer personnel together to resolve their competing views. X should, if possible, be provided with the personnel data maintained about him on October 21, 1993 and on other dates thereafter. If providing him with historical data is not possible, the District should provide him with policies, procedures, operations manuals, computer system documentation or any other public data that will verify with factual data, beyond the competing views of the District's personnel, that historical data are not kept.

Lastly, X has asked if he has the right to gain access to data that would inform him if the personnel status codes about him were changed and, if so, by whom and for what reason. The answer to this question depends, in part, on whether the District is maintaining more than one set of personnel data about X. As discussed above, there is some possibility of that being the case. If it is not, then it is clear that the personnel status code of 57 that appeared on the printouts received by X on January 10, 1994, was changed so that the printouts he received on February 9, 1994, carried a different status code. X is certainly free to ask the District why the codes were changed and who changed them. That kind of question is not necessarily within rights guaranteed him by the Data Practices Act. Asking a government entity to explain its actions is not a request for access to government data.

It is possible that the District maintains data, computer monitoring data, internal memoranda, copies of electronic mail messages or other forms of notes or correspondence, that document why the personnel codes were changed and who changed them. If it does, then X may have the right to gain access to that data by making requests for access to that data, either as personnel data maintained about him or as public data that record the identity of who, within a government entity, changed data in that government entity's files. It is not clear from the correspondence provided by X or by the District's response provided by Mr. Lalla whether or not the District even maintains the data that X seeking. Some computer systems closely monitor and record changes made to computerized files. Sometimes those systems also document by whom or by what terminal any data changes were made. It is not clear from the information provided how the District's computers are actually operated and what documentation about changes is recorded and kept.

Opinion: