December 11, 1996; City of Montevideo
12/11/1996 10:17:43 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 government entity that requested this opinion is presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submission are on file at the offices of PIPA and, with the exception of any data classified as not public, are available for public access.On November 4, 1996, PIPA received a letter requesting this opinion from James E. Norman, City Manager for the City of Montevideo. In his letter, Mr. Norman requested that the Commissioner issue an advisory opinion regarding the classification of data in a consultant's report to the City. Mr. Norman enclosed a copy of the report. A summary of the detailed facts of this matter follows. Early in 1996, the City retained a consultant to study the City's Police Department, identify problems, and make recommendations to the City for resolving the problems. The consultant's report addresses both organizational problems and personnel issues. According to Mr. Norman, some of the City's police officers want to discuss the report at an open meeting, and [t]he City is concerned that to the extent the report addresses personnel issues, it is private data and should not be discussed publicly.
Issue:
In his request for an opinion, Mr. Norman asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
Discussion:
Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.03, subdivision 1, government data are presumed to be public unless the data are classified as not public by statute, temporary classification (see Section 13.06), or federal law.
Pursuant to Section 13.43, subdivision 1, personnel data are defined as data on individuals collected because the individual is or was an employee of . . . a state agency, statewide system or political subdivision. Section 13.43, subdivisions 2 and 4, provide that certain data about current and former public employees are public, and that all other personnel data are private. A review of the report reveals that it contains both general statements about the City's Police Department, as well as comments that appear to be in the nature of performance evaluations about specific City personnel. Pursuant to Section 13.02, subdivision 5, data on individuals are all government data in which any individual is or can be identifiedas the subject of that data, unless the appearance of the name or other identifying data can be clearly demonstrated to be only incidental to the data and the data are not accessed by the name or other identifying data of any individual. (Emphasis added.) Given that definition, the report contains both data on individuals, and data not on individuals. Therefore, the City must conduct a critical examination of the report to determine whether any of the data identify, or could identify, City employees. The City must then determine whether the data that identify City employees in the report are classified as either public or private, pursuant to Section 13.43, subdivisions 2 and 4. Performance evaluations and other opinions about the performance of public employees are private data. Data in the report that are not data on individuals, but are general statements about the Police Department, and other City departments and how these departments operate, are presumed to be public data, pursuant to Section 13.03, subdivision 1. Opinion:Based on the correspondence in this matter, my opinion on the issue raised by Mr. Norman is as follows:
Signed:
Elaine S. Hansen
Dated: December 11, 1996
|
Personnel data
Consultants
Multiple data subjects
Performance data/evaluations
