skip to content
Primary navigation

Opinion Library

To return to this list after selecting an opinion, click on the "View entire list" link above the opinion title.

Advisory Opinion 02-016

April 8, 2002; Lake of the Woods County

4/8/2002 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:

On March 13, 2002, IPAD received a letter dated March 6, 2002, from Laurie Levasseur. In her letter, Ms. Levasseur asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding her access to certain data that Lake of the Woods County maintains.

IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Alan Christensen, Coordinator of the County, in response to Ms. Levasseur's request. The purposes of this letter, dated March 15, 2002, were to inform him of Ms. Levasseur's request and to ask him to provide information or support for the County's position. On March 25, 2002, IPAD received two responses on behalf of the County. One, dated March 22, 2002, from Philip Miller, the County Attorney, and the other, dated March 22, 2002, from Mr. Christensen, County Coordinator/Human Resources Director.

A summary of the facts as Ms. Levasseur presented them is as follows. In January 2002, the County promoted an employee. Several employees were upset by the County's action. Mr. Christensen then conducted interviews with each employee in the Social Services Department. During a staff meeting on February 4, 2002, he read verbatim a typed statement he had prepared after conducting the interviews with each employee. Ms. Levasseur verbally requested a copy of the statement. After consulting with Mr. Miller, Mr. Christensen refused to release the document stating that it was work product.

On February 7, 2002, Ms. Levasseur made a written request for the statement.

On February 22, 2002, Mr. Miller responded. He wrote:

Enclosed with this memo you will find the reconstructed notes that the Coordinator used during his meeting with the Social Services Department on February 4, 2002. I will first address the issue that these are 'reconstructed notes' due to the fact that the original notes were prepared by the Coordinator at home, on his home computer, the night before the meeting. After printing the notes, the file was deleted from his computer. Therefore, it was necessary for the Coordinator to reconstruct his notes to the best of his ability, based upon his recollection, so that I could make a more precise determination of which category of data these notes represented.

Mr. Miller also stated that he had redacted some of the reconstructed notes, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.02, subdivision 12.


Issue:

In her request for an opinion, Ms. Levassuer asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:

Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, and Minnesota Statutes, section 15.17, did Lake of the Woods County respond appropriately to a February 4 and 7, 2002, request for access to a statement that the County Coordinator read aloud during a meeting on February 4, 2002? Specifically, was it appropriate for the County to destroy the statement and is the County's explanation that some of the data are redacted pursuant to section 13.02, subdivision 12, sufficient?


Discussion:

Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, an individual has the right to request and gain access to government data. Government data are defined as, all data collected, created, received, maintained or disseminated by any [government entity] regardless of its physical form, storage media or conditions of use. See section 13.02, subdivision 7. Further, all government data are public unless otherwise classified. See section 13.03, subdivision 1. If an entity denies an individual access to data, the entity must cite the specific statutory section upon which it denied access. See section 13.03, subdivision 3(f).

The County's response, in essence, is as follows. Mr. Christensen apparently created notes on his home computer to present at the February 4 staff meeting. He did not save a copy of the notes. At the staff meeting, he basically followed my typed notes, though it was not a verbatim speech.

After the meeting, Ms. Levasseur asked for a copy of the notes and Mr. Christensen referred her request to Mr. Miller. Mr. Miller wrote, ...I likened his notes as a type of 'work product' which is deemed non-discoverable in litigation matters. I also questioned whether notes, used in giving a speech or presentation constitute 'data' under the statute. Mr. Christensen wrote, I relayed to Mrs. Levasseur the opinion of the County attorney that the notes were work product and as such I did not give her a copy of my notes....I considered the issue concluded and in cleaning off my desk at the end of the day for the evening threw away my typed notes I had used as a guide at the staff meeting.

Ms. Levasseur then made a written request, on February 7, 2002, for the notes. Mr. Christensen reconstructed from memory the types of issues I had spoken about. Mr. Christensen provided Ms. Levasseur with a copy of the reconstructed notes, some of which had been redacted. Mr. Christensen also noted that Mr. Miller had advised him to destroy any handwritten or computer generated information he had created during the investigation (of the matter he reported on at the staff meeting). Mr. Christensen wrote, I had notes of my individual meetings with the Social Service employees, some of which were handwritten and some which were stored in the computer, all of which I then destroyed.

In explaining the redactions to the reconstructed notes, Mr. Miller wrote, Although I did not go into great detail, nor do I believe it's required, I did briefly explain why redactions were made and provided the statutory basis.

The Commissioner has the following comments. Pursuant to section 13.02, subdivision 7, the notes Mr. Christensen created to discuss at the February 4, 2002, staff meeting were government data. Therefore, the data in the notes were public unless otherwise classified. Although the Commissioner disagrees with Mr. Miller's assertion that the notes were work product and protected from public access, the point is moot given that Mr. Christensen destroyed the notes.

However, the issue of the notes' destruction raises a potential problem. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 15.17, All officers and agencies of the state, counties, cities...shall make and preserve all records necessary to a full and accurate knowledge of their official activities. Further, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 138, government entities may dispose of government records only as provided by that Chapter. Although it is not entirely clear whether Mr. Christensen's notes constituted an official record, because he, as a top County official, used the notes to explain certain actions by the County, it is more than likely they were a form of official record. If so, the County could destroy them only as Chapter 138 dictates. If the notes were not an official record, then their destruction is not prescribed by law.

Regarding the redaction of the reconstructed notes, section 13.03, subdivision 3(f), states that government entities must cite the specific statutory section upon which they are denying access to data. Here, Mr. Miller advised Ms. Levasseur that data had been redacted pursuant to section 13.02, subdivision 12. This subdivision contains the definition of private data; it does not classify particular data as not public. The Commissioner assumes some of the data were redacted pursuant to section 13.43, personnel data. Again, the County was required to cite the specific statutory section(s) classifying the redacted data as not public. Mr. Miller did not do so.

Finally, in his comments, Mr. Miller wrote, In hindsight, I would acknowledge that Lake of the Woods County should have handled this matter differently. The Commissioner concurs.


Opinion:

Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue that Ms. Levasseur raised is as follows:

Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, and Minnesota Statutes, section 15.17, if the notes the County Coordinator prepared for and discussed at a February 4, 2002, meeting were an official record, it was not appropriate for the County to destroy them. If the notes were not an official record, their destruction is not prescribed by statute. Further, pursuant to section 13.03, subdivision 3(f), the County's explanation regarding the redaction of the reconstructed notes was not sufficient.

Signed:

David F. Fisher
Commissioner

Dated: April 8, 2002



Records management/retention

Regardless of physical form

Data destruction

back to top