January 31, 1995; School District 112 (Chaska)
1/31/1995 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.
Note: In December 1999, staff of the Information Policy Analysis Division, on behalf of the Commissioner, redacted not public data from this opinion. The redaction was necessary to bring the data in the opinion into compliance with amendments the Legislature made to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.072, the advisory opinion enabling legislation Facts and Procedural History:For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the citizen who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the citizen disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of PIPA and are available for public access.On January 5, 1995, PIPA received a letter dated January 4, 1994, from Mr. Mark Anfinson, an attorney representing the Chaska Herald. Mr. Anfinson's letter includes a discussion of the Herald's attempt to obtain certain data maintained by Independent School District 112, Chaska, hereinafter referred to as Chaska. Also in this letter, Mr. Anfinson requests an opinion from the Commissioner on the issue stated in the Issue section below. In response to Mr. Anfinson's request, PIPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Dr. David Clough, Superintendent of Chaska. The purposes of this letter, dated January 6, 1995, were to inform Dr. Clough of Mr. Anfinson's request, to ask him or Chaska's attorney to provide information or support for Chaska's position, and to inform him of the date by which the Commissioner was required to issue this opinion. (In subsequent correspondence, Mr. Anfinson and Dr. Clough were notified that the Commissioner would be taking a portion of the additional 30 days allowed by the opinion statute to issue this opinion.) On January 19, 1995, PIPA received a response dated January 19, 1995, from Ms. Maggie Wallner, attorney for Chaska. A summary of the detailed facts surrounding this issue is as follows. According to Mr. Anfinson, a reporter for the Herald received information indicating that Chaska was the object of a sexual harassment claim involving a student. The reporter then spoke with various school officials, requesting the following information: whether the school district had received a claim involving sexual harassment by a student; the status of any such claim; any damages that had been demanded; and a copy of the Notice of Claim, if one had been served on the District. Neither school authorities nor Chaska's attorney would provide any information. The attorney based her position on language in Minnesota Statutes Section 13.32 and 13.39. Mr. Anfinson argues that because the Herald is not seeking the identity of, or any information that could identify, the student, Section 13.32 does not apply. In addition, he argues that according to St. Peter Herald v. City of St. Peter, 496 N.W.2d 812 (Minn. 1993), the Notice of Claim, if one has been filed, should be public data and cannot be not public data under Section 13.39. In her response, Ms. Wallner asserts that when the reporter requested information regarding the alleged claim, he made his request by asking for data about the [X] incident at [a Chaska school]. Ms. Wallner argues that because the reporter asked for information about a particular student, any of that data would be private educational data under Section 13.32 and therefore, is not accessible to the public. She states, once the newspaper identified a particular student, any information would have implicitly identified the data subject as the '[X]' student at [a Chaska School]. In addition, Ms. Wallner disputes that the Notice of Claim should be public based on the holding in the St. Peter Herald case. Her argument appears to be that because the St. Peter Heraldcase did not involve a situation in which a Notice of Claim contained identifying data about a student, the case's holding has no applicability to the Chaska situation. Issue:
In his request for an opinion, Mr. Anfinson asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
Discussion:
It appears that both the Herald reporter's request for data and Mr. Anfinson's opinion request relate to data contained within a Notice of Claim, as filed pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 466.04. Generally, every person who claims damages from any municipality or municipal employee for or on account of any loss or injury within the tort liability statute (Section 466.02) must file a Notice of Claim stating the time, place and circumstances thereof, the names of the municipal employees known to be involved, and the amount of compensation or other relief demanded.
The answer to the issue raised by Mr. Anfinson revolves around a simple, yet critical and pivotal question: did the Herald reporter request data on individuals or data not on individuals? In his opinion request letter, Mr. Anfinson describes a fact scenario in which the Herald reporter requested certain data allegedly maintained by Chaska. Mr. Anfinson states, ...The newspaper is not seeking the identity of, or any information that could serve to identify, the student.... In addition, the issue he asks the Commissioner to address in this opinion is whether any data maintained by Chaska regarding the alleged claim would be accessible to the Herald, ...so long as the information was not 'collected' by the school district and so long as it does not identify the student.... However, based on the information provided by Ms. Wallner, the reporter asked specifically for data about the [X] incident, i.e. data about a specific, identifiable student. Rather than asking merely for data about an alleged incident, the reporter asked for data about a student. For that reason, any dissemination of such data by Chaska would be in violation of Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13. The key is that the reporter requested data on an individual. The term data on individuals is defined in Minnesota Statutes Section 13.02, subdivision 12, as, ...all government data in which any individual is or can be identified [emphasis added] as the subject of that data.... Data maintained by public educational agencies or institutions about students are classified under Section 13.32. Subdivision 1(a) of Section 13.32 defines educational data as, ...data on individuals maintained by a public educational agency or institution or by a person acting for the agency or institution which relates to a student [emphasis added].... The word student is defined in Subdivision 1 (b) of Section 13.32 as, ...an individual currently or formerly enrolled or registered...at a public educational agency or institution.... Subdivision 3 of Section 13.32 states that except in certain specific situations, none of which have been asserted by Chaska or Mr. Anfinson, educational data are private data and therefore, are not accessible to the public. When the Herald reporter requested information from school authorities, he framed his request in such a way that he asked for specific data about a specific student. Minnesota Statutes Section 13.32, by classifying education data as private data on individuals, clearly prohibits the release of such data to the public. On the flip side, as Mr. Anfinson's request states, had the reporter requested data relating to any claims filed against Chaska which did not identify the student involved, such data would clearly be data not on individuals. Data not on individuals is defined in Minnesota Statutes Section 13.02, subdivision 4, as all government data which is not on individuals. Such data maintained by public educational institutions do not appear to be classified in Chapter 13 as not public. Therefore, based on the presumption established by Chapter 13 that government data are public unless a federal law, state statute, or temporary classification of data provides otherwise, it appears that most data not on individuals maintained by Chaska would be classified as public data. Had the Herald reporter requested data not on individuals about the alleged claim, it appears those data would be public. However, as soon as the reporter identified the student, he was clearly requesting data on individuals. Except for certain exceptions which are not applicable in this situation, data on students are private data on individuals, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.32. Chaska is obligated to protect private data from public disclosure. (See Minnesota Statutes Sections 13.02, subdivision 12, and 13.05, subdivision 3.). Mr. Anfinson also argues that the Notice, as long as it does not identify the student, should be public data according to St. Peter Herald v. City of St. Peter, 498 N.W.2d 812 (Minn. 1993). In St. Peter Herald, the Supreme Court held that a Notice of Claim provided to a political subdivision is not collected by the political subdivision in anticipation of possible commencement of litigation and thus is not exempt from disclosure under Minnesota Statutes Section 13.39. However, Ms. Wallner contends that because the Notice of Claim in St. Peter Herald did not relate to a student and did not contain private educational data, ...the case provides no guidance regarding the educational data issue present in this case.... Because the Herald reporter made his request by asking for data about a specific student, those data appear to be private data under Section 13.32 and would not appear to be accessible to the public. As Ms. Wallner asserts, the St. Peter Herald case does not seem to be particularly on point as it relates to the Chaska situation. In this circumstance, the Herald reporter is requesting Notice of Claim data that may contain data which relate to a student. Such data are classified as private data by Section 13.32, not by Section 13.39. Opinion:Based on the correspondence in this matter, my opinion on the issue raised by Mr. Anfinson is as follows:
Signed: Elaine S. Hansen
Dated: January 31, 1995 |
Civil investigative data
Requests for data
Notice of claim
Notice of Claim (466.04 - Tort liability)
Data revealed in request determines entity response
