July 10, 2003; Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
7/10/2003 10:15:43 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 June 24, 2003, IPAD received a memorandum from Mary O'Neill, Human Resources Administrator for the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. In her memorandum, Ms. O'Neill asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding the classification of certain data the Department maintains. A summary of the facts is as follows. In her memorandum, Ms. O'Neill stated: As background information, the DNR has had the ability to compare individual [Conservation Officer] CO law enforcement activity with statewide averages (M.S. 84.0285) since 1986. This ability did not create nor impose a quota system, but rather has been a tool in measuring individual CO work performance activity along with other tools such as timesheets, log reports and monthly Daily Unit Diaries. The 2001 legislative session amended the language and removed all references regarding comparing individual law enforcement activity with statewide averages.... Who creates the data? Standardized hard copy forms are completed by Conservation Officers in the Division of Enforcement, by a few other DNR employees with limited law enforcement responsibilities, and by public and Indian band law enforcement officials outside the DNR when each is involved in a Minnesota natural resource law enforcement incident. The forms are sent for data entry to DNR's Central Office in St. Paul....Since narrative information is not placed in the database, the original hard copy forms are retained and stored for future law enforcement review as needed. What information is recorded an where is it stored? The Division of Enforcement maintains a separate database titled Arrests and Confiscation on one of our mainframe systems. Information placed into the database includes arrests, confiscations, trespass violations, summons and complaints, warnings of violations, custody seizure tags and reports, and officer assists in any of the above areas. Since the data being input [sic] into the data base comes from the hard copy record completed by the law enforcement individual involved in the incident, it is recorded by that individual's name; however, once the information is in the database, information can be generated in a number of ways (e.g. by individual who violated natural resource laws, by location in Minnesota, by specific statewide natural resource law enforcement project). Why is the data generated? The primary purpose for maintaining the data is to provide information for others, including the courts, county and state attorneys and law enforcement officers to take appropriate action (e.g. when a citizen has multiple hunting or fishing violations that call for revocation of license/payment of a fine; reviewing BWI and DWI information with another jurisdiction). Closely coupled with the above purpose is the ability to track Conservation Officer activities with complaints. Sometimes individuals may file false complaints. The Division of Enforcement must sort out and deal with valid and invalid complaints. When an individual files a complaint on alleged misconduct by one or more of the DNR's 160+ Conservation Officers, which occurs about ten to twenty times per year, one of the first actions taken by the Division of Enforcement is to determine if there is any record of the situation in the Arrests and Confiscation database. If there is a record, the Division could then pull the hard copy form sent in for data entry to review any pertinent narrative information on the original form. While certainly not a primary purpose, the database can and has provided summary reports for legislative committees, user groups, etc., on natural resource law enforcement activity. None of these reports have been about individual officer activity. Issue:In her request for an opinion, Ms. O'Neill asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
Discussion:Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 1, government data are public unless otherwise classified. Upon examination of the facts Ms. O'Neill presented, it appears there are two provisions in Chapter 13 that could classify the data in question. One possibility is that the data are personnel data classified pursuant to section 13.43. Section 13.43 classifies data on individuals collected because the individual is or was an employee. A reasonable argument could be made that the number of citations a particular officer issues on a yearly basis are data of which the officer is the subject and were collected because the officer is an employee of the Department. Subdivision 2 of section 13.43 enumerates the types of personnel data that are public. Subdivision 4 classifies most other types of personnel data as private. Because the number of citations an employee issues is not listed as one of the types of data listed as public in section 13.43, the data are private pursuant to subdivision 4 of section 13.43. The other provision which could classify the data is section 13.82. Section 13.82 applies to agencies carrying on a law enforcement function. Certain law enforcement data are always public, certain law enforcement data are never public, and certain law enforcement data may become public depending on the occurrence of certain events. Of relevance to this opinion, subdivisions 3 (request for service data) and 6 (response or incident data) specify certain law enforcement data that are always public. Subdivision 6(b) classifies the following data as always public when an agency responds to a request for service or takes action on its own initiative: agencies, units of agencies and individual agency personnel participating in the action unless the identities of agency personnel qualify for protection under subdivision 17. Thus, the data requestor would be able to determine how many citations a particular officer issued by culling through various daily reports. Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 645, provides guidance on statutory interpretation. Section 645.17 discusses presumptions in ascertaining legislative intent. In relevant part, it provides that the Legislature does not intend a result that is absurd, impossible of execution, or unreasonable. Section 645.26 discusses irreconcilable provisions. Subdivision 1 of section 645.26 states, in part, When a general provision in a law is in conflict with a special provision in the same or another law, the two shall be construed, if possible, so that effect may be given to both. Section 645.26, subdivision 1, further provides that if two provisions are irreconcilable, the special provision shall prevail and shall be construed as an exception to the general provision, unless the general provision shall be enacted at a later session and it shall be the manifest intention of the legislature that such general provision shall prevail. The Commissioner acknowledges the care with which the Legislature has adopted policy concerning the classification of personnel data. It is also clear, based on the language in section 13.82, that the Legislature intended certain data about law enforcement employees to be public. If the Department were to withhold the number of citations for a given officer, the result would be absurd because a member of the public could obtain the same data by perusing the daily officer reports. Furthermore, while section 13.43 is specific in its classification of personnel data, section 13.82 is more specific in that it classifies personnel data maintained by law enforcement agencies in particular. In addition, because the Legislature adopted section 13.82 after adopting section 13.43, it clearly understood that certain information about personnel carrying out law enforcement functions would be public. Another indication the Legislature was aware that certain law enforcement personnel data would be public is that the Legislature specifically excluded undercover law enforcement officers from having to make data about themselves public pursuant to section 13.82, subdivision 6(b). Thus, the Commissioner opines that the data at issue are public pursuant to section 13.82. A final point is in order. The Commissioner is aware of a case recently decided by the Minnesota Court of Appeals involving the classification of certain data St. Paul police officers collected during traffic stops in eight months of 2000. (See Star Tribune v. City of St. Paul, 660 N.W.2nd 821.) The Court held, We conclude the police officers are the subjects of the data in question and that the data [were] collected because the police officers were employees of a government entity. As such, the data [are] classified as personnel data and [are] not publicly accessible under [Chapter 13]. Both the Star Tribune case and this opinion involve data relating to law enforcement personnel. However, the Commissioner believes the facts and analysis of the case are such that the two situations are distinguishable. The Commissioner notes that the Court's reasoning in the Star Tribune case appears based on a view that the police officers collected the traffic stop data so the City could evaluate their performance. In the case of this opinion, it appears the Department's officers collected the data in question primarily as documentation of the officers' interaction with the public. Opinion:Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue that Ms. O'Neill raised is as follows:
Signed:
Brian J. Lamb
Dated: July 10, 2003 |
Law enforcement data
Legislative authority and intent
Personnel data
Statutory construction (Ch. 645)
Statutory construction (Ch. 645)
Department of Natural Resources
Law enforcement data
Personnel data
Law enforcement
Law enforcement data
Absurd or unreasonable result (645.17)
Conflicting or irreconcilable provisions (645.26)
