Primary navigation

    Opinion Library

    To return to this list after selecting an opinion, click on the "View entire list" link above the opinion title.

    RSS feed

    Advisory Opinion 95-009

    March 2, 1995; School District 877 (Buffalo)

    3/2/1995 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 February 9, 1995, PIPA received a letter dated February 6, 1995, from the X's. The X's letter included a discussion of an incident regarding their son, a student at Buffalo High School, during which they believe an inappropriate dissemination of data occurred. Also in this letter, the X's requested an opinion on the issue stated in the Issue section below.

    In response to the X's request, PIPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Dr. M. Darrell Miller, who was thought to be the current Superintendent of Buffalo School District # 877, hereinafter referred to as District #877. The purposes of this letter, dated February 13, 1995, were to inform Dr. Miller of the X's request, to ask him or District #877's attorney to provide information or support for the District's position, and to inform him of the date by which the Commissioner was required to issue this opinion. On February 21, 1995, PIPA received a response dated February 16, 1995, from Tom Nelson, the new Superintendent of District #877. In his letter, Mr. Nelson noted that he had attached a copy of a memo written by Mary Loberg, Assistant Principal of Buffalo Senior High School, in which she explains her actions regarding the incident in question.

    A summary of the detailed facts surrounding this issue is as follows. The X's son was suspended, for three days, from attending both classes and extracurricular activities at Buffalo High School. During that time, he was present at a non-district hockey practice which had been scheduled to begin after a Buffalo High School varsity hockey game, at the same ice arena. Ms. Loberg was a school supervisor at the varsity hockey game.

    Apparently, before the X's son's hockey practice began, Ms. Loberg confronted the X's son and accused him of violating the terms of his suspension. As part of that confrontation, Ms. Loberg apparently disclosed some of the details regarding the suspension to Thomas Ahrens and Rory Zitur, coaches of the X's son's hockey team.


    Issue:

    In their request for an opinion, the X's asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:

    Whether the dissemination of data about X's son was in violation of Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13?


    Discussion:

    In analyzing the X's question, it is first necessary to discuss the classification of the data in dispute. The X's son is a student of a public school. Data maintained by public educational agencies or institutions about students are classified in 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.... 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 Ms. Loberg or the X's, educational data are private data and therefore, are not accessible to the public. Given this statutory language, it is clear that any data relating to the X's son's suspension are private data.

    In her memo, Ms. Loberg appears to defend the dissemination of data to Mr. Ahrens by explaining that he was, ...another school official working at the hockey game (the trainer).... However, she offers no explanation as to why this particular fact would authorize him to gain access to the data. Minnesota Rules Chapter 1205.0400, subpart 2, describes who within a given government entity may have access to private data.

    Access to private data shall be available only to the following: the subject of such data, as limited by any applicable statute or federal law; individuals within the entity whose work assignments reasonably require access; entities and agencies as determined by the responsible authority who are authorized by statute, including Minnesota Statutes Section 13.05, subdivision 4, or federal law to gain access to that specific data; and entities or individuals given access by the express written direction of the data subject. [Emphasis added.]

    Based on the language in the Rules, the fact that Mr. Ahrens is, in the words of District #877, a school official is not, per se, sufficient grounds for him to have access to any private data about a student enrolled in the school district. If Mr. Ahrens' work assignment reasonably required him to have access to private data, then, according to Minnesota law, access would be legal. However, in the case of this opinion, District #877 makes no attempt to demonstrate how it is that Mr. Ahrens' work assignment reasonably requires him to have access to data about the X's son's suspension. Therefore, it seems that disclosure of this information to Mr. Ahrens is not authorized by Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13 and its implementing rules.

    In relating how Mr. Zitur became informed of details surrounding the X's son's suspension, Ms. Loberg, in her memo, states the following, ...At some point in the conversation, his [the X's son's] other coach came up, introduced himself as the other coach, and he began to listen in. I did not talk with him but continued directing my conversation to Dr. Ahrens.... Ms. Loberg provides no explanation as to how she apparently concluded it was appropriate to disclose private educational data about the X's son in the presence of Mr. Zitur, who appears to have no connection whatsoever to the school district. Given that District #877 did not demonstrate why Mr. Zitur should have access to the data, and that the X's assert neither Mr. Zitur nor Mr. Ahrens is a district employee, the Commissioner is left to conclude there is no reason, under Chapter 13, as to why Mr. Zitur should have access to private educational concerning the X's son.

    Opinion:


    Based on the correspondence in this matter, my opinion on the issue raised by the X's is as follows:

    The information relating to the X's son's suspension is private data pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13. Given that Minnesota law specifies the individuals and entities permitted to gain access to private data, and that District #877 provided no supporting evidence that either Mr. Ahrens or Mr. Zitur are authorized to gain access to private data, the dissemination of the data by Ms. Loberg is not authorized by Chapter 13 or its implementing rules.

    Signed:

    Elaine S. Hansen
    Commissioner

    Dated: March 2, 1995


    Educational data

    Work assignment reasonably requires access

    Work assignment reasonably requires access (1205.0400, 1205.0600)

    back to top