Discussion:

Issue 1

Did MnSCU respond appropriately to a data subject's January 4, 2000, request for data within the time frame set forth in Minnesota Statutes, section 13.04?

In a January 4, 2000, letter, X asked for a copy of his/her complete personnel file, adding that s/he wanted all additional personnel information regarding me that may be filed in other files in your office. In this letter, X wrote that s/he gave permission for MnSCU to provide a copy of this information to X's representative. MnSCU's January 13, 2000, response was within the statutorily-mandated time frame. However, MnSCU then forwarded additional data on February 22, 2000.

In her comments to the Commissioner, Ms. Kaplan related that the data MnSCU provided on January 13 were the official' personnel file, as defined in the Collective Bargaining Agreement at Article 24, Section 1, and as requested, other miscellaneous files maintained by the Human Resources Department. She added, The College did not include all personnel data that existed on X,' including a supervisor's file maintained by Dean Y' that was not part of the official' personnel file under the Collective Bargaining Agreement. Ms. Kaplan also wrote, The facts...present a threshold issue on the extent to which [Chapter 13] or the Collective Bargaining Agreement controls the access to information. She then argued, There is nothing in the January 4 request that reasonably puts MnSCU on notice that it was intended to be a comprehensive request under [Chapter 13] for all personnel information about X' in any location.

In this case, the issue is whether MnSCU's February 22 response was timely. Ms. Kaplan argued that the February 22 response contained data that were maintained in a supervisory file as opposed to a personnel file. The Commissioner opines that this is irrelevant. As stated above, section 13.04 requires government entities to respond to data subjects' requests within ten days. Chapter 13 does not provide for a different response time when data requestors are covered by collective bargaining agreements. From the Commissioner's perspective, X's request seems clear; a copy of his/her complete personnel file as well as all additional personnel information regarding me that may be filed in other files in your office. If MnSCU was confused about X's request, someone should have obtained clarification from X within the ten day period. Therefore, it is the Commissioner's opinion that MnSCU's response to X was not timely.

Issue 2

Was MnSCU's February 22, 2000, response to a data subject's January 4, 2000, request for data appropriate?

In her opinion request, Ms. Clark argued that four of the six documents MnSCU provided to X on February 22 were improperly redacted. She added, According to Minn. Stat. section 13.03, upon the employee's request the employer must cite the specific statutory section, temporary classification, or specific provision of federal law upon which the denial was based.

In her comments, Ms. Kaplan wrote that MnSCU redacted some data pursuant to section 13.43, subdivision 6. The Commissioner does not agree that MnSCU can use this section as a basis upon which to deny access to data. Section 13.43, subdivision 6, sets forth the situations in which an entity may provide data to labor organizations when the entity does not have consent from the data subject to share the data. In the case at hand, it appears that X gave MnSCU his/her permission to share the data with X's labor representative.

Ms. Kaplan wrote also that the redactions were appropriate for other reasons. Regarding one document, a letter from students whose signatures MnSCU redacted, she cited section 13.32 and federal law stating that the identities of the students are private data. Regarding the other three documents, she cited section 13.43, stating that the redactions consisted of identities and other private personnel data about other employees who were commenting about X's work. Ms. Kaplan added, MnSCU acknowledges that it should have provided the statutory citations justifying the redactions...

The Commissioner has reviewed the four documents and has the following comments. The letter from the students expresses their concerns about X as their instructor. Although MnSCU redacted the students' signatures, MnSCU did not redact the names of the classes those students attend. Most data about students are private pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.32, subdivision 3. Given the subject matter of the letter and the context under which the letter was created, it seems appropriate that MnSCU redacted the students' names.

Ms. Kaplan asserted that the data redacted from the remaining three documents was done so pursuant to section 13.43, personnel data. Subdivision 2 of section 13.43 lists the types of data about employees that are public and subdivision 4 classifies most other types as private. In this case, because the Commissioner has not seen the unredacted documents and does not know the specifics of the situation involving X's issues with Northwest Technical College, he is not in a position to determine, with certainty, whether MnSCU's redactions are appropriate.

Finally, the Commissioner agrees with Ms. Kaplan that when MnSCU refused to disclose some of the data to X (by redaction), MnSCU should have provided X with the statutory citations upon which it relied to deny access to the data. See section 13.03, subdivision 3.

Opinion:

Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issues that Ms. Clark is as follows: