January 22 2007; City of Minneapolis
1/22/2007 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 December 6, 2006, IPAD received a letter dated December 5, 2006, from Ann Walther, an attorney representing the Police Officers Federation of Minneapolis. In her letter, Ms. Walther asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding the Federation's right to gain access to certain data from the City of Minneapolis. IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Craig Steiner, the City's Responsible Authority for Data Practices, in response to Ms. Walther's request. The purposes of this letter, dated December 14, 2006, were to inform him of Ms. Walther's request and to ask him to provide information or support for the City's position. On December 19, 2006, IPAD received a response, dated same, from Mr. Steiner. A summary of the facts is as follows. In a letter dated October 17, 2006, Ms. Walter asked to inspect the following data: All electronic mail, written correspondence or other documents sent or received by the following elected officials regarding: 1) the Police Officers' Federation of Minneapolis ( Federation ); 2) any member of the Federation Board . . . 3) the Minneapolis Civilian Review Authority ( CRA ) or 4) the CRA Work Group: Councilmember Betsy Hodges
Ms. Walther specified, The scope of this request applies to all data sent or received since January 1, 2006. In a letter dated November 15, 2006, Mr. Steiner responded and apparently provided Ms. Walther with some of the data she requested. He noted that certain data had been redacted pursuant to sections 13.43 and 13.601. In an email dated November 16, 2006, Ms. Walther wrote regarding the portions the City had redacted pursuant to section 13.43. She stated, . . . I am requesting that you provide me with the name of the employee whose personnel data it is. The name of the employee is public information. In another email dated November 16, 2006, Ms. Walther wrote, . . . I would like the names of the 'individuals' with whom each councilmember communicated which resulted in their declaring the data non-public under section 13.601. I would also like the names of all employees whose private personnel data was 'removed'. In an email dated December 1, 2006, Mr. Steiner responded: In response to your request for the names of the employees whose information was redacted or removed from the previously requested data, names of personnel are private data in the context of internal e-mail communications about their performance pursuant to Minn. Stat. section 13.43 subd. 2. In response to your request for the names of the persons who corresponded with the Council Members, which resulted in the invocation of the correspondence privilege, Minn. Stat. section 13.601 subd. 2 makes correspondence between elected officials and individuals private. The names of other individuals are part of the correspondence and are therefore private. Issues:Based on Ms. Walther's opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issues:
|
Elected and appointed officials
Personnel data
Combining data elements may uniquely identify an individual
13.601
Correspondence with elected officials
Employee name