September 9, 2003; City of Saint Paul
9/9/2003 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:On July 30, 2003, IPAD received a letter, dated same, from Dennis Flaherty, Deputy Mayor for the City of Saint Paul. In his letter, Mr. Flaherty asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding the classification of certain data the City maintains. The Commissioner sought comments from the data requestor, Tim Nelson of the St. Paul Pioneer Press. On August 8, 2003, IPAD received comments, dated same, from Paul Hannah, an attorney representing the newspaper. A summary of the facts is as follows. In an email dated July 21, 2003, Mr. Nelson wrote to Angie Nalezny, the City's Director of Human Resources. He stated that he believed the City had conducted an investigation into a complaint made about a particular individual, X. Mr. Nelson requested any related paperwork or electronic records, voice mail, or other documentation related to any complaints regarding X. Mr. Flaherty responded in an email dated July 23, 2003. He wrote: ...Ms. Nalezny did investigate a report of possible harassment by [X] by interviewing the person who was alleged to be the victim. We are not permitted by law to identify or confirm the identity of the alleged victim, who worked for the City. Based on Ms. Nalezny's interview with the alleged victim, she determined that there was no harassment and no need to make further investigation or documentation. Therefore the file on this matter consists entirely of Ms. Nalezny's interview notes. Because those notes are data on the alleged victim who was volunteer of the City, it is the alleged victim's private data. Thus, it is personnel data under Minnesota Statutes Section 13.43, subd. 1, and private personnel data under Minnesota Statutes section 13.43, subd. 4.... ...you state that information about [X] is not protected under the personnel provisions of [Chapter 13]. I agree with you that [X] is neither an employee nor a volunteer of the [City]. Therefore any data the City might have on [X] with respect to this or similar allegations is not personnel data under Minnesota Statutes Section 13.43. However, as noted above, all of the data collected on this matter is private data on the alleged victim. Mr. Nelson wrote back in an email dated July 21, 2003. He argued, That the interview notes taken by Ms. Nalezny include identifying information on [X] does not mean that the notes in their entirety are [not public]....According to Minn. Statutes, Section 13.03, subdivision 3, you are obligated to separate the public from the non public data in this record and make it available for inspection. (Emphasis provided.) In his opinion request, Mr. Flaherty wrote: ...Ms. Nalezny had received an allegation concerning [X] from a City employee...who worked with the volunteer. The co-worker had no first hand information. Ms. Nalezny interviewed a senior staff person to whom the co-worker had also made the allegation and she also interviewed the volunteer on the phone and later in person. Based on the volunteer's statements, Ms. Nalezny concluded that the complaint was unfounded and without merit. The only documentation of this are the handwritten notes Ms. Nalezny took contemporaneously with her interviews. Mr. Flaherty provided to the Commissioner a copy of the notes with identifying data redacted. Issue:In his request for an opinion, Mr. Flaherty asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
|
Personnel data
Complainant identity
Employee name