October 31, 1998; Clay County
10/30/1998 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 PIPA and, except for any data classified as not public, are available for public access.On August 31, 1998, IPA received a letter from Mark Anfinson, an attorney representing The Forum newspaper of Fargo-Moorhead. In his letter, Mr. Anfinson asked the Commissioner to issue an opinion regarding access to certain data maintained by Clay County. At IPA's request, Mr. Anfinson clarified his opinion request in a telephone call and a facsimile letter dated September 9, 1998. Mr. Anfinson provided copies of related correspondence. In response to Mr. Anfinson's request, IPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Vijay Sethi, Clay County Coordinator. The purposes of this letter, dated September 10, 1998, were to inform him of Mr. Anfinson's request, and to ask him to provide information or support for the County's position. On September 24, 1998, IPA received a response from Ann Goering, an attorney representing Clay County. A summary of the detailed facts of this matter follows. In a letter to Mr. Sethi dated June 9, 1998, Karyn Spencer, a reporter for The Forum, requested copies of e-mail conversations from January, February and March between Social Services director Dennis Lien and county attorney Todd Webb regarding a child abuse investigation. . . . . In addition, please provide any letters or memos written to the Clay County commissioners regarding this topic. According to Mr. Anfinson: [i]n conversations with county officials, Ms. Spencer made clear that she did not seek information that would identify either the alleged victim or alleged perpetrators; rather her interest was in comments that Mr. Lien may have made about the county attorney's response to the allegations. . . . In her response to the Commissioner, Ms. Goering stated that data related to child abuse reports and investigations are not public pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Sections 626.556, 626.558 and 13.46. Ms. Goering wrote: [a]s stated in the response to The Forum, such data cannot be released. Contrary to the implication in Mr. Anfinson's [opinion request], the data in question contains information which could identify a subject of and/or alleged perpetrator of a child abuse report. No data responsive to The Forum's request exists which does not contain identifying information. Ms. Goering further wrote: [s]econd, even if the data could be redacted in such a way as to remove all identifying information related to the subject(s) of child abuse allegations, the remaining data, which discusses the handling of child abuse reports and/or investigations by the County Attorney, constitutes private personnel data pursuant to Min. Stat. 13.43.
Issue:
In his request for an opinion, Mr. Anfinson asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
Discussion:
Neither party disputes that data about child abuse allegations and investigations are not public pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 626.556. Pursuant to Section 626.556, subdivision 11, all records concerning individuals maintained by a local welfare agency under this section, and reports maintained by any police department or the county sheriff are private data on individuals. However, according to Mr. Anfinson, The Forum was interested in obtaining data about the manner in which the allegation was handled by the County Attorney, not details of the allegation itself.
According to information provided to the Commissioner, the Clay County Attorney, an elected official, is an employee of the County. (See Advisory Opinion 98-002.) Data about public employees are classified according to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.43. Pursuant to subdivisions 2 and 4 of that Section, certain personnel data are classified as public, and all other personnel data are private. According to Ms. Goering, the data requested by The Forum that do not identify the subject(s) of child abuse allegations are data about the handling of child abuse reports and/or investigations by the County Attorney, and as such are private personnel data, pursuant to Section 13.43, subdivision 4. Ms. Goering did not provide a specific description of the data that remain in question, which were not provided to the Commissioner for her review. It is possible that some of those data are public, for instance work assignment, under Section 13.43, subdivision 2. Another exception would be if any of the data reflected complaints or charges against an employee, or are data documenting the basis of final disciplinary action taken against an employee. (See Section 13.43, subdivision 2 (a) (4) and (5), and (b).) That does not appear to be the case here. It is also possible that some of the data may constitute observations or comments about County policies and procedures regarding child abuse allegations. To the extent that those data do not or could not identify an individual employee, those data are also public. However, if all the remaining data are comments about how the case was handled by a County employee, i.e., performance related data, then Ms. Goering is correct. Those data are not included in the list of data that are public under Section 13.43, subdivision 2. Opinion:Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue raised by Mr. Anfinson is as follows:
Signed:
Elaine S. Hansen
Dated: October 30, 1998 |
Educational data
Personnel data
Law enforcement data connection
Performance data/evaluations
