October 15, 2004; School District 276 (Minnetonka)
10/15/2004 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 September 7, 2004, IPAD received a letter from Bill Slowter. In his letter, Mr. Slowter asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding a determination made by Independent School District 276 (Minnetonka) about a data practices issue. In response to Mr. Slowter's request, IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Dennis Peterson, District Superintendent. The purposes of this letter, dated September 7, 2004, were to inform him of Mr. Slowter's request and to ask him to provide information or support for the District's position. On September 27, 2004, IPAD received a response from Joseph E. Flynn, an attorney for the District. A summary of the facts of this matter follows. In a letter dated March 25, 2004, Mr. Slowter wrote to Peggy Stefan, the District School Board Chair, and raised questions regarding whether X, a former School Board member, had violated provisions of Chapter 13. In a letter dated April 15, 2004, Ms. Stefan responded: Finally, I can acknowledge that when a complaint is raised, as you have done in this [the March 25, 2004] letter, we will investigate that complaint and if we believe action is appropriate would so act. However, it would appear, given my understanding of data practices law, that such investigation and actions would be private under the law. In a letter dated May 5, 2004, Mr. Slowter wrote to Ms. Stefan, and asked for [t]he existence and status of any complaints against [X] during [his/her] tenure on the Board. Mr. Slowter also sent that letter to Michael J. Lovett, Assistant Superintendent for Human Resources and the District's Data Practices Compliance Official (DPCO). In a letter dated July 28, 2004, Ms. Stefan replied: By letter dated March 25, 2004, you made inquiry regarding various alleged conversations with School Board member [X] and inquiring whether certain alleged conversations with [X] and various persons relating to the reorganization of the Arts Center constituted a 'possible' violation of data privacy. Please be advised that I have investigated these inferences [sic] and find no evidence of any data privacy violations as suggested in your letter. . . . . As you know, elected officials are the subject of frequent comment by various individuals, but there are no complaints on file in School District offices relating to any formal complaints against [X] or any other board members. Also there are no complaints or evidence of any data privacy violations on file, with the exception of your letter dated March 25, 2004. Mr. Slowter wrote to the Commissioner: I am troubled by the District's response. First, it doesn't seem reasonable to require almost 3 months before responding to a simple, straightforward request. Secondly, I'm puzzled by their lack of data. I served on the Minnetonka School Board from 1998 though [sic] 2001 and [X] joined the Board in 2000. During my term as Chair, in October of 2000, a formal complaint was made against [X]. Furthermore, in a letter to another Minnetonka resident dated December 12, 2002 (copy enclosed) that complaint was acknowledged. The December 12, 2002, letter to which Mr. Slowter referred contains the following statements, under the heading Investigation: A complaint was made against [X]. Based on the fact that no disciplinary action resulted from the investigation, the School District is not permitted to identify the substance of the charge, as such data is classified as private personnel data pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.43. Mr. Flynn provided the Commissioner with copies of letters and e-mails between Mr. Slowter and the District, which Mr. Flynn said address overlapping and similar questions . . . . References to the documents will show that Mr. Slowter communicated with Dr. Lovett on numerous occasions from March 25, 2004, through June 29, 2004, addressing various facets of the information request . . . . Mr. Flynn stated, . . . there was confusion relating to the communication regarding [Mr. Slowter's] request dated May 5, 2004, since he sent both to the School Board chair, as well as [Dr. Lovett], creating some misunderstanding as to who was responding to the request. Mr. Flynn wrote that Ms. Stefan believed that she already had addressed 'the complaint question' relating to X in letters she wrote to Mr. Slowter dated April 15, 2004 and June 10, 2004. Mr. Flynn stated: [f]inally, communications were delayed because of the summer recess and attendant vacations of School District personnel and correspondence related to clarification of Mr. Slowter's requests as evidenced in the enclosed communications. According to Mr. Flynn, . . . there were various circumstances which led to the delay in addressing Mr. Slowter's informational requests, including but not limited to . . . [t]he lack of clarity in Mr. Slowter's informational request and the mixing of data information requests with opinion and argument . . . [and] ongoing communications between Mr. Slowter and Dr. Lovett relating to necessary clarification to respond to Mr. Slowter's requests. Mr Flynn wrote: [i]n summary, the line of numerous communications between the School District and Mr. Slowter demonstrate [sic] an ongoing, good faith effort on the part of the School District to provide responses to the data requests of Mr. Slowter. Mr. Flynn also discussed Mr. Slowter's question about why the District told him that there were no complaints against any Board members, when, in Dr. Lovett's letter of December 12, 2002, to a third party, Dr. Lovett referred to a complaint against a Board member and subsequent investigation. According to Mr. Flynn, Ms. Stefan believed the complaint data sought by Mr. Slowter in his May 5, 2004, request, related to the allegations he (Mr. Slowter) made against X in his March 25, 2004, letter. As noted above, Ms. Stefan discussed her investigation of those allegations in her July 28, 2004, letter to Mr. Slowter. Mr. Flynn wrote: Mr. Slowter's opinion request . . . suggests that during his term as School Board Chair in October 2000, a formal complaint was made against X and that this was acknowledged by the School District in a communication dated December 12, 2002 . . . . Mr. Flynn stated that Mr. Slowter reached an erroneous conclusion that Ms. Stefan was inaccurate when she stated to him in her July 28, 2004, letter that there are no formal complaints against X or any other School Board member on file with the School District. According to Mr. Flynn, in a letter dated October 7, 2000, Mr. Slowter, who was then School Board Chair, and the then-Vice Chair, raised questions as to whether or not data privacy rights [of a student and District employee] had been violated . . .by [X]. Mr. Flynn stated that they were not alleging a data privacy violation by School Board member [X] but were calling upon legal counsel to review certain documents and to conduct an investigation to make such a determination. According to Mr. Flynn, in apparent reference to the December 12, 2002, letter to the third party, [a]pparently Dr. Lovett, who was not involved in the matter, but was aware of it by hearsay information, took it as a 'complaint' within the generic usage of the word. Mr. Flynn, in apparent reference to the October 7, 2000, letter from Mr. Slowter, further stated: School Board Chair Stefan did not regard it as a 'complaint' within the meaning of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, but rather regarded it as an inquiry letter . . . . Part of the confusion resulted because apparently Mr. Slowter was asking about the very document that he in fact coauthored . . . . Mr. Flynn wrote: In summary, it is respectfully suggested that the October 7, 2000, 'letter of inquiry' was not a 'complaint' within the meaning of Chapter 13, and this determination created some confusion because Dr. Lovett regarded it as a complaint, at least generically speaking, and School Board chair Stefan regarded it simply as an inquiry. This conclusion is further reinforced because the School District would hardly be attempting to conceal a document from the person who coauthored it and obviously had it in his possession. Issue:In his request for an opinion, Mr. Slowter asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
|
Personnel data
Requests for data
School board members
School board members
Complaint or charge
Status
Entity responsibility