April 6, 2001; School District 239 (Rushford-Peterson)
4/6/2001 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 February 9, 2001, IPA received a letter dated February 6, 2001, from Debra Corhouse, an attorney representing Education Minnesota. In her letter, Ms. Corhouse asked the Commissioner to issue an opinion regarding whether School District 239, Rushford-Peterson, inappropriately released data about a District employee, X. IPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to David U'ren, Superintendent of the District, in response to Ms. Corhouse's request. The purposes of this letter, dated February 14, 2001, were to inform him of Ms. Corhouse's request and to ask him to provide information or support for the District's position. On February 23, 2001, IPA received a response, dated same, from Anne Becker, an attorney for the District. A summary of the facts according to Ms. Corhouse is as follows. In March of 2000, in response to a parental complaint, the District initiated an investigation of X. On April 3, 2000, Ms. Becker sent a letter to the parents stating that the parents' complaint was substantiated. Two days later, the District issued its initial notice of deficiency and reprimand to X. Three weeks later, on or about April 27, 2000, the District completed its revisions to the letter, in response to X's grievance of April 25, 2000. The grievance was resolved. Ms. Corhouse asserted that when the District disclosed to the parents that their complaint had been substantiated, the District released more data than what is allowed pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43, subdivision 2(a)(4). She stated, The fact that the District released data as to its conclusions is especially troubling in this case, because informing the complainants (the parents) that their complaint was substantiated was essentially equivalent to releasing the actual investigative report (which is clearly private data). Issue:In her request for an opinion, Ms. Corhouse asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
Discussion:Data about employees are classified at Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43. Specifically, certain data related to and stemming from complaints and/or charges made about employees are classified as public: the existence and status of any complaints or charges against the employee, regardless of whether the complaint or charge resulted in a disciplinary action; (see subdivision 2(a)(4)) and the final disposition of any disciplinary action together with the specific reasons for the action and data documenting the basis of the action, excluding data that would identify confidential sources who are employees of the public body; (see subdivision 2(a)(5). Final disposition is defined at subdivision 2(b). The essence of these provisions is that more data become public when and if a final disposition of a disciplinary action has occurred. If no final disposition occurs, very limited data are public. In Advisory Opinion 94-042, the Commissioner wrote: ...The public has an important interest in knowing how government entities are handling and have handled complaints and charges that are made against public employees. On the other hand, public employees have strong reputational and other interests in not having unsubstantiated and potentially false complaints or charges made against them disclosed to the public. The legislature has achieved that balance by saying that certain data about complaints or charges against public employees will always be public but certain other data, and particular details concerning a given complaint or charge against a public employee, will not become public unless and until there is a final disposition of a disciplinary action against the employee. In her comments to the Commissioner, Ms. Becker wrote, About a year ago, our firm was asked to investigate a complaint brought against a School District employee by members of the public. At the conclusion of the investigation, we were asked to inform the complainants of the outcome of that investigation. Ms. Becker stated that in the letter to the parents she wrote, As part of my investigation of your complaint, I interviewed [various people]. Following my investigation, I made recommendations to the School District concerning my findings and possible action. The complaint was substantiated. The School District took appropriate action. In her comments to the Commissioner, Ms. Becker added, In this case, the status of the complaint was that it had been investigated and substantiated and the statements in the letter were fully consistent with the disclosure of the complaint's status. The Commissioner respectfully disagrees with Ms. Becker's position. It is correct that section 13.43, subdivision 2(a)(4), clearly states that status of a complaint or charge is public, and, under different circumstances, an entity's disclosure that a complaint had been substantiated might be appropriate. However, as the Commissioner has previously discussed, if a final disposition has not occurred (as is the case here), an entity's release of status information should not disclose particular details regarding a complaint. The problem in this situation is that Ms. Becker, in revealing to the complainant parents that their complaint had been substantiated, released much more than status information. She implicitly informed them that the very things they had alleged about X were correct. Thus, in this particular fact situation, the Commissioner opines that the District inappropriately released data about X. An appropriate response would have been a statement that the investigation had been completed and that the District was initiating disciplinary action. Opinion:Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue that Ms. Corhouse raised is as follows:
Signed: David F. Fisher
Dated: April 6, 2001 |
Personnel data
Complainant access to data
Status
