October 23, 2000; School District 11 (Anoka-Hennepin)
10/23/2000 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 August 23, 2000, IPA received a letter from Kevin Pachl. In this letter, Mr. Pachl asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding his right to gain access to certain data maintained by Independent School District 11, Anoka-Hennepin. In response to Mr. Pachl's request, IPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Dr. Roger Giroux, Superintendent of the District. The purposes of this letter, dated August 24, 2000, were to inform him of Mr. Pachl's request and to ask him to provide information or support for the District's position. On September 5, 2000, IPA received a response from Paul H. Cady, District Legal Counsel. A summary of the facts of this matter follows. In a letter dated August 21, 2000, Mr. Pachl asked to review certain public data about a District employee. He also wrote: [i]f all of the specific data is not provided for inspection, certify in writing the basis of the denial. In a letter dated August 22, 2000, DeAnn LaValle, District Human Resources Manager and Responsible Authority designee for personnel data, responded: [i]t is anticipated that this request will require one half hour clerical time at $20.00 per hour to gather the information. Actual copy charges will depend on the number of pages to be copied. In his response to the Commissioner, Mr. Cady wrote: The public data sought by Mr. Pachl includes public data inextricably intertwined with private data contained in the personnel file. . . . . Consequently, while the government entity may not charge to inspect public data or charge for separating public from not public data, the government entity may charge for creation of data. Unfortunately, the MGDPA does not provide clear guidance for distinguishing between data that is separated (as contemplated by Minn. Stat. section 13.03, Subd. 3) for which a charge may not be assessed and data that is created for which a charge may be assessed. In this regard, the creation of data, i.e., creating a summary of the accessible public data after it has been separated from the inaccessible private data is similar to procedures for preparation of summary data. . . . . Finally, it should be noted that it was unclear, until receipt for a response to this matter, that Mr. Pachl only wanted to inspect the data. It was the District's understanding . . . that Mr. Pachl was desirous of copies of the public data. Consequently, based on its understanding of what Mr. Pachl was requesting at that time, it is the position of the District that it responded appropriately to Mr. Pachl's request for public data. Moreover, the half-hour clerical time was reasonable for the purpose of gathering public data and creating a summary of public data in a form that would make it accessible to Mr. Pachl. Issue:In his request for an opinion, Mr. Pachl asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
Discussion:Data on current and former public employees are termed personnel data and are classified at Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43. The treatment of personnel data runs contrary to the general presumption that government data are public unless otherwise classified by state or federal law (see section 13.03, subdivision 1.) Subdivision 2 of section 13.43 sets forth the types of personnel data that are public and subdivision 4 classifies most other personnel data as private. According to Mr. Cady, the District maintains the data in question, i.e., the public personnel data on a particular employee, in such a manner that they are inextricably intertwined with the private personnel data on the employee. He stated that the District viewed Mr. Pachl's request as a request for summary data, within the meaning of section 13.05, subdivision 7. Mr. Cady's response is problematic for the following reasons. First, according to section 13.03, subdivision 1, government data shall be maintained in such an arrangement and condition as to make them easily accessible for convenient use. The data Mr. Pachl requested are clearly public. If the District maintains them such that they are inextricably intertwined with private data, it has not met its obligation under section 13.03, subdivision 1. Second, Mr. Cady indicates that the District views Mr. Pachl's request as a request for summary data. The Commissioner has previously addressed this issue. In Advisory Opinion 00-011, he opined: Pursuant to section 13.02, subdivision 19, Summary data' means statistical records and reports derived from data on individuals but in which individuals are not identified and from which neither their identities nor any other characteristic that could uniquely identify an individual is ascertainable. The definition of summary data is key to understanding the difference between preparation of summary data and separation of public from not public data. Summary data must be derived from what is otherwise completely private or confidential data. To create summary data, government entities are required to remove all personal identifiers from the private or confidential data. Other detailed private or confidential data do not need to be redacted, once the personal identifiers are removed. The principal reason for the summary data provision is to allow access to otherwise private or confidential data for research purposes. By contrast, separation of public from not public data is not just a process of removing personal identifiers. It is a process of separating all not public data from the public data, which government entities are required to do, pursuant to section 13.03, subdivision 3, when public and not public data are intermingled. Otherwise the right to free inspection of public government data could be frustrated simply by maintaining public and not public data together. The possibility that commingling of data could adversely affect public access is one of the reasons the Legislature requires government entities to separate public from not public data at no charge. Mr. Pachl did not ask for summary data. He asked the District to provide him with access to public personnel data. That is not a request that requires preparation of summary data, it is a request that requires separation of public and not public data, as provided at section 13.03, subdivision 3. In addition, Mr. Cady said that the District assumed Mr. Pachl was requesting copies of data. However, Mr. Pachl did not request copies, he asked to review the data, and referred to inspection of the data. If necessary, the District should clarify the nature of a data request upon receipt. Opinion:Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue raised by Mr. Pachl is as follows:
Signed: David F. Fisher
Dated: October 23, 2000 |
Personnel data
Response to data requests
Inextricably intertwined data (See also: Northwest Publications, Inc. v. City of Bloomington, 499 N.W.2d 509)
Summary data
Public and not public data
