March 3, 1997; School District 2143 (Waterville-Elysian-Morristown)
3/3/1997 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 government entity requesting this opinion are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of PIPA and, with the exception of data classified as not public, are available for public access.On January 6, 1997, PIPA received a letter dated January 3, 1997, from Kevin Rupp, an attorney representing School District #2143 (Waterville-Elysian-Morristown), hereinafter District 2143. In his letter, Mr. Rupp requested that the Commissioner issue an opinion regarding the classification of data contained in an arbitration award. A summary of the facts relating to this matter is as follows. Mr. Rupp wrote that the arbitration award involves the discipline of a district employee. He stated, Two separate disciplinary actions were consolidated and submitted to the arbitrator....The arbitrator upheld both disciplinary actions in total. Mr. Rupp further wrote that District 2143, relying on Minnesota Statutes Section 13.43, subdivision 2 (5), contends that with the exception of data identifying current and former employees and/or data identifying students, the data contained in the arbitration award are public.
Issue:
In their request for an opinion, Mr. Rupp asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
Discussion:
Data about current and former employees maintained by government entities such as District 2143 are classified pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.43, which provides that certain data about employees are public, and that all other personnel data are private.
Subdivision 2 (a) (6) of Section 13.43 provides that the following personnel data are public:
Subdivision 2 (b) further provides:
In the present situation, according to Mr. Rupp, District 2143 disciplined an employee twice; the first action was a letter of deficiency and a six-day suspension without pay, and the second was a discharge from employment. The arbitrator's report, a copy of which was provided to PIPA by Mr. Rupp, states:
The arbitrator further wrote, Therefore, given the Parties were unable to resolve the dispute and stipulate to an absence of procedural deficiency, the matter was reduced to writing in accordance with Article XII - Grievance Procedure and appealed to Arbitration. As Mr. Rupp discussed in his opinion request, the arbitrator upheld both disciplinary actions in total. The specific issue raised by Mr. Rupp regards the classification of the data contained in the arbitration award. Because it is clear that disciplinary action was taken against the employee by District 2143, the next step is to determine whether a final disposition has occurred. According to Section 13.43, subdivision 2 (b), a final disposition occurs at the conclusion of the arbitration proceedings. Therefore, in this case, a final disposition has occurred. Pursuant to Section 13.43, subdivision 2 (4), the final disposition of the disciplinary action is public, as are the specific reasons for the action and data documenting the basis of the action. However, Section 13.43, subdivision 2 (4), also provides that any data that identify confidential sources who are employees of the public body are not public. In the situation presented by Mr. Rupp, the final disposition relates to two separate disciplinary actions. One of the disciplinary actions is that the employee received a notice of deficiency and a six-day suspension. The second is that the employee was terminated. That information (the actual discipline taken), plus the specific reasons for the disciplinary actions, plus any data documenting the basis of those actions are public. Therefore, any data in the arbitration award that relate to the specific reasons for the disciplinary actions, and any data which document the basis of those actions are public. In his opinion request, Mr. Rupp discussed the fact that some of the data in the arbitrator's award are about other (than the disciplined employee) District 2143 employees and District 2143 students. Of the data about the employees he wrote, The School District believes that it will be complying with the Act by redacting the names and job titles of current and former employees. These individuals will then no longer be identified as the subject of the data. In regard to the data about students, Mr. Rupp wrote, Many students testified during the arbitration, and the arbitrator discusses their testimony in the award. The arbitrator, however, uses letters to identify the students rather that their actual names. The School District believes that the use of letters to identify the students means that individual students are not and cannot be identified as the subject of the data.
The answer to Mr. Rupp's question depends on whom the data in the arbitrator's report are about. (For additional information regarding similar issues, please see Advisory Opinion 93-010.) In other words, is the subject of the data the disciplined employee, a student, or another District 2143 employee? Section 13.02, subdivision 5, defines data on individuals as:
For reasons stated above, if the data are about the disciplined employee, those data are public if the data represent the specific reasons for the disciplinary action or document the basis of the action. However, if the data are about other District 2143 employees or students, the classification of those data depends on the language of Sections 13.32 and 13.43. Generally speaking, Section 13.32, educational data, provides that data collected, created, and maintained by public educational institutions about students are private (the main exception being those data which become public through the directory information process, see Section 13.32, subdivision 5). Therefore, if some of the data in the arbitrator's award are about individual students and can be identified as such, and the data are classified as private pursuant to Section 13.32, then that information needs to be removed from the report. However, if the use of identifiers by the arbitrator means that comments by any one student cannot be attributed to that student, then the data are no longer data about that student and are public pursuant to the presumption in Section 13.03, subdivision 1. The same analysis applies to any data in the arbitrator's award that are about a District 2143 employee other than the disciplined employee. If so, and the data are classified as private pursuant to Section 13.43, then the data need to be removed. If, however, removing the names and job titles of those employees creates a result such that any statements or comments cannot be attributed to a particular employee, then the data are no longer data about the other District 2143 employee and are public pursuant to the presumption in Section 13.03, subdivision 1. Opinion:Based on the correspondence in this matter, my opinion on the issue raised by Mr. Rupp is as follows:
Signed:
Elaine S. Hansen
Dated: March 3, 1997 |
Personnel data
Arbitrator decision or award
Specific reasons and data documenting basis for action
Educational data, included (See also: Educational data - Personnel data)
