December 5, 2000; City of Windom
12/5/2000 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 September 19, 2000, IPA received a letter from Mark Anfinson, attorney for the Cottonwood County Citizen, a newspaper published at Windom, Minnesota. In this letter, Mr. Anfinson asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding his client's right to gain access to certain data maintained by the City of Windom. In response to Mr. Anfinson's request, IPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Dennis Nelson, Administrator of the City. The purposes of this letter, dated September 20, 2000, were to inform him of Mr. Anfinson's request and to ask him to provide information or support for the City's position. The City did not respond. A summary of the facts of this matter follows. According to Mr. Anfinson, a City police officer was involved in an incident that resulted in criminal charges, and shortly thereafter, the Citizen sought information . . . about [the employee's] job status, i.e., whether [s/he] had been placed on administrative leave with pay, was on leave without pay, or continued on active duty. Mr. Anfinson stated that the City has repeatedly denied access to the data. In support of his position that the data requested are public, Mr. Anfinson wrote: We understand, of course, that under Minn. Stat. section13.43, personnel data about public employees are generally classified as private unless otherwise enumerated in subdivision 2. However, we believe that the explicit language of subdivision 2, coupled with any reasonable interpretation of this language, requires that public agencies disclose whether a law enforcement officer has been placed on leave as the result of an incident, and if so whether the officer is receiving pay and benefits during leave. Although common and routine practice is obviously not dispositive as to legal questions, it certainly seems to be the case that almost invariably, law enforcement agencies in Minnesota do provide information about the job status of an officer following the occurrence of a serious incident. Issue:In his request for an opinion, Mr. Anfinson asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
Discussion:It is not clear from the information provided if the Citizen made a data practices request of the City, or merely posed questions that do not amount to a request for access to data under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13. If it is the latter, then the City was under no obligation to respond. However, if the Citizen requested access to the employee's job status, compensation and benefits under Chapter 13, then the City should have provided it with the following public personnel data, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43, subdivision 2(a), clauses (1) and (8): actual gross salary; the value and nature of employer paid fringe benefits; and payroll time sheets or other comparable data that are only used to account for employee's work time for payroll purposes. Opinion:Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue raised by Mr. Anfinson is as follows:
Signed:
David F. Fisher
Dated: December 5, 2000 |
Personnel data
Requests for data
Law enforcement
Data request vs. question/inquiry
