May 1, 2000; School District 698 (Floodwood)
5/1/2000 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 March 16, 2000, IPA received a letter from Rebecca H. Hamblin, an attorney for Education Minnesota, on behalf of the Education Minnesota Floodwood local. In this letter, Ms. Hamblin asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding whether Independent School District 698, Floodwood, improperly released certain data to the public. In response to Ms. Hamblin's request, IPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Rob Benson, Superintendent of the District. The purposes of this letter, dated March 16, 2000, were to inform him of Ms. Hamblin's request and to ask him to provide information or support for the District's position. On March 24, 2000, IPA received a response from Kevin J. Rupp and Margaret A. Skelton, attorneys for the District. A summary of the facts of this matter follows. According to Ms. Hamblin: On December 14, 1999, a school board meeting packet was distributed to Floodwood School Board members, administrative staff, and members of the public in attendance at the school board meeting. The packet contained a Direct Deposit Register' generated by the [District] which listed, by individual employee name, the employee's bank name, account number, and amount deposited for all employees using payroll direct deposit. On December 16, 1999, Superintendent Benson issued a memorandum in which he stated that the bank account numbers should not have been included in the packet described above, and apologized for the error. In their response to the Commissioner, the attorneys for the District stated that the data in question were included in the Business Manager's report, and were not discussed at the School Board meeting. According to Mr. Rupp and Ms. Skelton, the packet was distributed to Board members, and was available to others in attendance. They stated [t]o the best of the District's information and belief, no individual saw the data in question who was not entitled to see it. Mr. Rupp and Ms. Skelton also stated that the inclusion of the data in question in the packet was entirely unintentional and inadvertent. Issue:In her request for an opinion, Ms. Hamblin asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
Discussion:Data on current and former public employees are termed personnel data and are classified at Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43. The treatment of personnel data runs contrary to the general presumption that government data are public unless otherwise classified by statute, federal law, or temporary classification (see section 13.03, subdivision 1.) Subdivision 2 of section 13.43 sets forth the types of personnel data that are public and subdivision 4 classifies most other personnel data as private. In the case of this opinion, the data in question consist of a list, by individual employee name, of the employee's bank name, account number, and amount deposited for all District employees using payroll direct deposit. Other than employee name, those data are not included in the list of public personnel data. Therefore, they are private and not available to members of the public. Mr. Rupp and Ms. Skelton stated that the School Board members and District personnel (the Superintendent, Business Manager and Superintendent's secretary) who viewed the data are entitled to gain access to private data under Minnesota Rules, Part 1205.0400. According to the Rule, access to private data within a government entity is limited to those individuals whose work assignments reasonably require access to the data. Mr. Rupp and Ms. Skelton further stated that the union representative was also entitled to gain access to private personnel data under section 13.43, subdivision 6, and section 179A.13, subdivision 2 (11), because the collective bargaining agreement between the union and the District requires the District to provide for payroll direct deposit. Therefore, according to Mr. Rupp and Ms. Skelton, [t]he teachers' union has the right to review the data to verify that the District had in fact implemented a direct deposit system for its members. Pursuant to section 13.43, subdivision 6: [p]ersonnel data may be disseminated to labor organizations to the extent that the responsible authority determines that the dissemination is necessary to conduct elections, notify employees of fair share fee assessments, and implement the provisions of chapters 179 and 179A. In relevant part, section 179A.13, subdivision 2 (11) provides that public employers are prohibited from refusing to provide, upon the request of the exclusive representative, all information pertaining to the public employer's budget both present and proposed, revenues, and other financing information . . . . The Commissioner respectfully disagrees with the District's position that either of those provisions authorizes a union representative to gain access to District employee bank names, account numbers or deposit amounts in order to verify that the District was meeting its obligation to provide for payroll direct deposit. As noted above, Mr. Rupp and Ms. Skelton stated that the District is not aware that any other member of the public actually viewed the private personnel data in the packet that was available for public review at the Board meeting. Nonetheless, as the District itself has acknowledged, the District erred in making private personnel data available to the public. Opinion:Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue raised by Ms. Hamblin is as follows:
Signed:
David F. Fisher
Dated: May 1, 2000 |
Personnel data
Labor/union access (13.43, subd. 6)
Time sheets or payroll
