To return to this list after selecting an opinion, click on the "View entire list" link above the opinion title.
May 7, 1997; University of Minnesota
5/7/1997 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 PIPA and, with the exception of any data classified as not public, are available for public access.On March 18, 1997, PIPA received a letter dated March 17, 1997, from Albert Burnham. In his letter, Mr. Burnham requested that the Commissioner issue an opinion regarding his access to certain data maintained by the University of Minnesota-Duluth, hereinafter UMD. On behalf of the Commissioner, PIPA wrote to Dr. Kathryn Martin, Chancellor of UMD, in response to Mr. Burnham's request. The purposes of this letter dated April 1, 1997, were to inform her of Mr. Burnham's request and to ask her or UMD's attorney to provide information or support for the University's position. PIPA received a response, dated April 17, 1997, from Tracy M. Smith, Associate General Counsel at the University of Minnesota.
A summary of the facts surrounding this matter is as follows. In approximately early 1996, Mr. Burnham requested access to a copy of a report which had been compiled by an outside consultant. In a letter dated February 25, 1997, to Vince Magnuson (Vice Chancellor for Academic Administration), Mr. Burnham wrote:
Mr. Burnham then requested an advisory opinion stating, As of March 17, 1997, Mr. Vince Magnuson... has not responded to my inquiry to him. In her response, Ms. Smith wrote that the report was redacted because it contains private personnel data about other University employees. She noted that in a letter dated April 2, 1997, Mr. Magnuson wrote to Mr. Burnham and explained portions of the report were redacted because they contained not public information pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13. Ms. Smith further wrote that the University should have explained to Mr. Burnham that the data were redacted because they are private personnel data pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.43.
Issue:
In his request for an opinion, Mr. Burnham asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
Discussion:
In the present situation, Mr. Burnham requested a copy of a report that was prepared by a consultant for the University of Minnesota-Duluth.
Section 13.03 provides that upon request, a person shall be permitted to gain access to public government data. If the government entity determines that the requested data are classified so as to deny the requesting person access, the entity shall so inform the requestor and shall cite the specific statutory section on which the determination is based. The response must be made in a prompt and appropriate manner, and within a reasonable time. (See Section 13.03, subdivision 3, and Minnesota Rules Section 1205.0300.) Based on the information submitted, it is not possible for the Commissioner to determine whether the University responded to Mr. Burnham's request for a copy of the report within a reasonable time. However, it does not appear that the University fulfilled its statutory obligation to cite the statutory citation upon which the redaction (denial of data) was based. Mr. Burnham has been attempting to determine why portions of the report were redacted. Mr. Burnham stated that at the time he received the report, UMD staff explained that the redaction was for purposes of confidentiality. Pursuant to Section 13.03, the University was required to provide a specific statutory citation. Ms. Smith, on behalf of the University, has acknowledged that UMD did not provide enough information to Mr. Burnham. She wrote, In retrospect, the University should have provided Mr. Burnham with the specific statutory section upon which the denial of the information was based....The specific statutory basis for the denial of the redacted information was Minn. Stat. 13.43 (1996), dealing with private personnel data. Section 13.43 sets forth the various types of personnel data that are public and states that all other personnel data are private. Ms. Smith stated that the University, pursuant to its obligation under Section 13.43, has redacted private personnel data about employees other than Mr. Burnham contained in the report. Opinion:Based on the correspondence in this matter, my opinion on the issue raised by Mr. Burnham is as follows:
Signed:
Elaine S. Hansen
Dated: May 7, 1997 |
Redaction
Denial of access to data – authority required (13.03, subd. 3(f))
Redaction (See also: Multiple data subjects; Separation of data)
