Note: In 2014, the Legislature amended Minnesota Statutes, section 13.05, subd. 11(a), related to government contracts.

Facts and Procedural History:

On September 21, 2005, IPAD received a letter dated September 19, 2005, from Laurie Miller, an attorney representing the Minnesota Partnership for Action Against Tobacco (MPAAT). In her letter, Ms. Miller asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding the classification of certain data that MPAAT maintains. IPAD required additional information, which Ms. Miller provided on September 26 and 28.

A summary of the facts is as follows. In her opinion request, Ms. Miller wrote:

I represent [MPAAT], an independent, non-profit organization that seeks to improve the health of Minnesotans by reducing the harm caused by tobacco. MPAAT was created and funded by three percent of the settlement of the State of Minnesota's litigation against tobacco companies. MPAAT has asked me to request an advisory opinion of the Commissioner.

While MPAAT is not a state agency, the Ramsey County District Court, which administers the settlement of the State's tobacco litigation, issued an Order on December 30, 2002 that makes applicable to MPAAT the provisions of the Data Practices Act. The basis of the Order was the Court's finding that MPAAT would benefit from the additional public accountability imposed by the Data Practices Act - not that MPAAT was a state agency or other entity subject to state data practices requirements. While the Court's Order does not address all aspects of MPAAT's relationship to the Data Practices Act, MPAAT's working assumption is that to the extent possible, MPAAT must conduct itself as though it were fully subject to the Data Practices Act.

MPAAT enters into contracts with a variety of other organizations to conduct specific research projects. When each research project is completed, the researcher provides a report to MPAAT, presenting the research results. MPAAT typically publicizes the results of the research projects it commissions through a variety of means MPAAT does not, however, typically release to the public all of the raw data underlying each research project.

The question posed by this letter arises when, after release of a research study report, MPAAT receives a request under [Chapter 13] for production of raw data underlying the report. While the report itself may clearly be public data, can the underlying raw data, which is not typically released, have a more protected status?

As an example, MPAAT recently commissioned a research project to study the effects of the smoking bans enacted this year in both Hennepin and Ramsey Counties. The Minnesota Institute for Public Health and the Center for Energy and the Environment conducted the study with funding from MPAAT. The study consisted of measuring the air quality at 25 bars and restaurants in Hennepin, Ramsey, and Dakota counties, both before and after the enactment of the smoking bans, to learn what impact the bans had on air quality. The research results were presented in a report, which MPAAT released to the public. The report did not disclose the names of the 25 bars and restaurants where the air quality monitoring was conducted. After the report was made public, however, MPAAT received a [Chapter 13] request for the raw data underlying the report, including the identification of the 25 bars and restaurants that were studied.

The underlying raw research data, including the names of the 25 establishments, to the extent it was not included in the final study report, is an example of the kind of raw research for which MPAAT seeks the Commissioner's advisory opinion

Issue:

Based on Ms. Miller's request for an opinion, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issue:

Discussion:

Before proceeding, it must be determined whether MPAAT is subject to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13. Chapter 13 regulates data collected by government entities. Section 13.02, subdivision 7a, defines government entity as a state agency, political subdivision, or statewide system.

MPAAT is not a state agency, political subdivision, or statewide system. However, based on an order of the Ramsey County District Court, MPAAT apparently is subject to the requirements of Chapter 13. In the December 30, 2002, Order, the Court held, The Star Tribune's motion to subject MPAAT to and require its compliance with the Minnesota Open Meeting Law, Minn. Stat. section13D.01 et seq. and [Chapter 13], Minn. Stat. section 13.01 et seq. is GRANTED.

The Court wrote:

It is not necessary to determine whether or not [Chapter 13D] and [Chapter 13] apply to MPAAT's operations because of the single funding source, i.e., the tobacco settlement funds channeled to MPAAT by the legislature.

It is sufficient to say that the court's continuing jurisdiction allows the court the discretion to make applicable the requirements of [Chapter 13D] and [Chapter 13] simply because MPAAT's compliance with the requirements of each of those chapters will benefit the primary ends for which MPAAT was created.

(See State of Minnesota and Blue Cross Blue Shield of Minnesota v. Philip Morris, Incorporated, et al, Court File No. C1-94-8565 (Second Judicial District Ramsey County State of Minnesota).)

Thus, by virtue of this court order, data MPAAT collects, creates, and maintains are subject to Chapter 13. In addition, the Commissioner assumes data collected, created, and maintained by MPAAT's contractors also are subject to the requirements of Chapter 13. (See section 13.05, subdivision 11.)

Ms. Miller asked the Commissioner to discuss the classification of underlying raw data researchers collect as they conduct various studies on behalf of MPAAT.

Pursuant to section 13.03, subdivision 1, government data are public unless otherwise classified. Generally, there is no provision in Chapter 13 that specifically classifies raw or underlying research data as anything other than public. Without knowing precisely the types of data MPAAT researchers collect, the Commissioner can respond only in terms of generalities.

If there is no provision in Chapter 13, another Minnesota statute, or federal law, that classifies the research data in question as private, nonpublic, confidential, or protected nonpublic, MPAAT must release the data upon request. If, however, certain provisions of law classify the data as not public, MPAAT cannot release them. In analyzing the classification of the research data, MPAAT must keep in mind that Chapter 13 classifies individual data elements, as opposed to documents. Thus, it is possible for a single document to contain data of differing classifications.

Finally, it should be noted that Ms. Miller stated that MPAAT and its researchers maintain the names of the 25 bars and restaurants studied as part of a recent research project. The Commissioner is not aware of any provision in Chapter 13 that classifies those data as anything other than public.

Opinion:

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

Signed:

Dana B. Badgerow
Commissioner

Dated: October 27, 2005