October 1, 2001; School District 740 (Melrose)
10/1/2001 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 government entity that requested this opinion are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of IPA and, except for any data that are not public, are available for public access. On August 10, 2001, IPA received a letter dated August 8, 2001, from Stephen Knutson, an attorney representing School District 740, Melrose. In his letter, Mr. Knutson asked the Commissioner to issue an opinion regarding the classification of certain data that the District maintains. In a letter dated September 19, 2001, IPA wrote to Education Minnesota, the organization representing the employee who is the subject of the data at issue. On September 25, 2001, IPA received a letter, dated same, from Anne Krisnik, an attorney from Education Minnesota. A summary of the facts is as follows. The District proposed immediate discharge of the employee. The employee requested a hearing before an arbitrator. The arbitrator issued her binding decision on December 1, 2000. In his request for an opinion, Mr. Knutson wrote: The Arbitrator did not rule in her decision on the issue of whether the teacher's conduct was remediable. She concluded that a more thorough evaluation is needed before it can be concluded that the [School] District's decision to immediately discharge was not arbitrary, unreasonable or contrary to law. ...In light of this conclusion, the Arbitrator required that a psychological examination be conducted of the teacher. The Arbitrator also imposed a disciplinary suspension without pay and benefits. The length of the disciplinary suspension without pay and benefits and the teacher's potential return to employment were made dependent upon the results of the full psychological evaluation, remediation (if found to be possible) and, if necessary, reassessment. At no point does the teacher have an opportunity to recoup any of the pay and benefits lost as a result of the disciplinary suspension. The psychological report has been completed. Mr. Knutson asked the Commissioner to opine as to the classification of both the arbitrator's decision and the psychologist's report. Issue:In his request for an opinion, Mr. Knutson asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
Discussion:Data on public employees are termed personnel data and are classified at Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43. Public personnel data are listed in subdivision 2; pursuant to subdivision 4, all other personnel data are private. Pursuant to section 13.43, subdivision 2(a)(5), the final disposition of any disciplinary action together with the specific reasons for the action and data documenting the basis of the action, excluding data that would identify confidential sources who are employees of the public body, are public data. Pursuant to section 13.43, subdivision 2(b): For purposes of this subdivision, a final disposition occurs when the [government entity] makes its final decision about the disciplinary action, regardless of the possibility of any later proceedings or court proceedings. In the case of arbitration proceedings arising under collective bargaining agreements, a final disposition occurs at the conclusion of the arbitration proceedings, or upon the failure of the employee to elect arbitration within the time provided by the collective bargaining agreement. Final disposition includes a resignation by an individual when the resignation occurs after the final decision of the [government entity] or arbitrator. In his opinion request, Mr. Knutson wrote: When the Arbitrator issued her Decision in this matter, a final disposition occurred. Discipline, in the form of a suspension without pay, was imposed on the [employee] and that discipline cannot now be overturned. At a minimum, there is a final disposition of a disciplinary suspension of the [employee] without pay and benefits for a lengthy period. In accordance with the [Arbitrator's] Decision and the law, this disciplinary action stands even if the [employee] is able to complete a remediation program successfully at some point in the future. Mr. Knutson asserted that both the data in the arbitrator's decision ( Decision ) and that the psychological report ( Report ) are data documenting the basis of the disciplinary action and the data contained within those documents are public, excluding private personnel or private educational data. In her comments to the Commissioner, Ms. Krisnik argued that the Decision is public but that the Report is not. She stated, The arbitrator's decision sets forth the 'disciplinary action' taken (imposing an unpaid suspension and requiring a psychological assessment). As a result, the arbitrator's decision is public. Similarly, any data relied upon by the arbitrator in making this decision would be public. She further wrote: The Arbitrator's decision imposed two separate requirements on the teacher: (1) a psychological assessment to determine when the teacher would be able to return to work, if at all; and (2) an unpaid suspension until such time as the teacher returns to work. These two items comprise the disciplinary action imposed on the teacher; they are the final disposition in this case. The Report, completed as a result of the final disposition, and prepared after the final disposition, cannot be considered data that documents the basis for that disciplinary action. The Commissioner has the following comments. As stated above, a final disposition occurs when a government entity makes its final decision about a disciplinary action. In a situation in which the parties have gone to arbitration, a final disposition occurs at the conclusion of the arbitration. Here, the arbitration concluded when the arbitrator issued her report, i.e., on December 1, 2000. The teacher was suspended without pay and benefits. The suspension without pay that the arbitrator ordered was the final disciplinary action. For the purposes of Chapter 13, a final disposition occurred and the following data became public: the final disposition of the disciplinary action together with the specific reasons and data documenting the basis for the action. Therefore, any data in the Decision that relate to the specific reasons for the disciplinary action, and any data that document the basis of the arbitrator's decision are public, excluding any data identifying confidential sources who are employees of the body. However, if any of the data in the Decision are about students or other District employees, and are classified as private pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Sections 13.32 and 13.43, respectively, those data are private. (See also Advisory Opinion 97-010.) However, because the Report was created after the final disposition, the data within the Report cannot constitute either the specific reasons for the disciplinary action or data documenting the basis for the disciplinary action. Any data in the Report of which the employee is the subject are classified pursuant to section 13.43; subdivision 2 lists those data that are public and subdivision 4 classifies the remainder of personnel data as private. The Commissioner assumes most of the data in the report are private. Further, any data in the Report about students are classified pursuant to section 13.32 and data about other employees are also classified pursuant to section 13.43. Opinion:Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue that Mr. Knutson raised is as follows:
Signed: David F. Fisher
Dated: October 1, 2001 |
Personnel data
Arbitrator decision or award
Specific reasons and data documenting basis for action
Multiple data subjects
