January 16, 2001; School District 625 (St. Paul)
1/16/2001 10:20:43 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 person who requested this opinion and the response from the government entity with which the person disagrees are presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submissions are on file at the offices of IPA and, except for any data classified as not public, are available for public access. On November 7, 2000, IPA received a letter dated November 3, 2000, from X. In X's letter, s/he asked the Commissioner to issue an opinion regarding his/her access to data maintained by School District 625, St. Paul. Upon request from IPA staff, X provided additional documentation on November 20, 2000. IPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Patricia Harvey, Superintendent of the District, in response to X's request. The purposes of this letter, dated November 28, 2000, were to inform her of X's request and to ask her to provide information or support for the District's position. On December 11, 2000, IPA received comments, dated December 8, 2000, from Nancy Cameron, Assistant General Counsel for the District. A summary of the facts as X presented them is as follows. In a letter dated September 20, 2000, X wrote to the principal of one of the District's schools. X stated, In order to review and inspect, I request a full and complete copy of the education records of X's two children. X also requested a copy of the record of the pages of [one of X's children's] communication devise [sic]. X wrote, If a fee is required [for copies], please send me a note specifying the amount required...I do not wish to receive any telephone calls. X sent this letter certified and it was signed by a recipient on September 22, 2000. X provided to the Commissioner a copy of the letter and the mail receipts. In a letter dated October 9, 2000, X wrote again to the principal. X stated that s/he had not yet received a response. X sent this letter certified and it was signed by a recipient. X provided to the Commissioner a copy of the letter and the mail receipts. In X's opinion request, X noted that on October 20, 2000, s/he contacted staff at the IPA office. Staff advised X that s/he needed to determine the identity of the District's responsible authority so that X could address his/her requests to that person. X noted that s/he then spoke with the office manager of the District's student data office. This person advised X that X had sent his/her request to the appropriate person within the District. X wrote that this person volunteered to investigate why the school had not responded. In X's opinion request, X wrote that on October 30, the office manager called X to say that the school had not received X's first request and required another request. X wrote that s/he then contacted the Superintendent's Office (after speaking with IPA staff) and was transferred to staff in the Area Superintendents' Department. X wrote that this person took record of my experience and informed me she would call the school. I also, per my choice, faxed her a copy of my two letters to the school on 9/20 and 10/9. X stated that on November 1, 2000, X received a call from the school principal. X wrote: I discontinued the call without response due to the nature of the inquiry and immediately called [the Area Superintendents' staff person] to inform her of the phone call. (The principal stated to me that since she assumes I already have some records of my [children] that she was not going to send those.) X then, on November 1, 2000, wrote to the Area Superintendents' staff about the phone call. X provided a copy of this letter to the Commissioner. X stated: It has made me feel that if I was not very specific in my request for copies of my [children's] educational records that I would not receive a complete copy. Additionally, I do not know how specific I need to be. Do I need to fill out a form? Otherwise, let me be as specific as I can without a form....I would like complete educational records (copies) maintained by St. Paul School District, of, about, or concerning my [children] as stated in my request of September 20, 2000. I also would like a copy of the pages of my [child's] [communication device] that are maintained by the district. On November 14, 2000, X wrote to IPA and stated that on November 3, 2000, s/he received data from the District. However, wrote X, some of the data X expected to receive, such as attendance records, progress reports, academic competition records, therapy records, communication device records, etc., were missing. Apparently X then returned all of the records to the school. X provided to the Commissioner a copy of the letter X received from the District regarding X's return of the records. The school principal wrote: We received the educational records for [X's children]...that were sent to you on Nov. 2nd, 2000. These are educational records you requested in writing September 20 and October 9, 2000. Since you found the educational records confusing, we are in the process of reorganizing the educational records for you so it will be less confusing. We are also in the process of working with our Special Educational professionals to get the information you are requesting from the [communication device]....We apologize for not being able to get everything to you at the time of your request. As soon as we have everything, we will send everything out to you that we have on file. Issue:In X's request for an opinion, s/he asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
Discussion:Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.04, subdivision 3, when a data subject makes a request for data about him/herself, government entities are required to make the data available within ten working days. When the data subjects are minors, in most cases, the parent(s) is entitled to obtain the data. See section 13.02, subdivision 12. X's authority to gain access to data about his/her children is not in dispute. In her response to the Commissioner, Ms. Cameron argued that while there may have been a technical violation, in that there was a time delay in X's request for copies and X's receipt thereof, there was no substantive violation. She first asserted that the ten day response requirement does not apply because X did not make his/her request to the District's responsible authority - the Superintendent. It is correct that X did not make his/her initial request for data (September 20, 2000) to the District's Superintendent. However, on October 20, 2000, X contacted the student data office and staff there advised X that X had sent the September 20, 2000, request to the correct person. Ten days later, on October 30, 2000, upon a suggestion from IPA staff, X contacted the Superintendent's office and spoke with staff in the Area Superintendents' Office. X faxed the original request to that person. Shortly thereafter, X received a call from the school principal to whom X had originally sent his/her request. From that point on, it appears that all correspondence from the District came from that school principal. The problem with Ms. Cameron's argument is that it appears the District treated X's September 20, 2000, communication to be a legitimate data practices request. District staff had examined the request and were processing it. Furthermore, if a parent calls the student data office and is advised by staff that the parent has directed a data request to the correct person, it seems reasonable for the parent to rely on that response. Ms. Cameron did not dispute the fact that X contacted someone at the student data office. Finally, even if the ten day response time began upon the Superintendent's Office receiving X's request (October 30, 2000), it appears that as late as November 17, 2000, the District was still sending data to X in response to the original request. This is past the ten day statutory deadline. Ms. Cameron further argued that the District was not required to provide data about one of X's children because X had received data on this child after April 12, 2000. Section 13.04, subdivision 3, does state that if a person has gained access to private data, the entity is not required to disclose those data again for six months thereafter, unless there are additional data or a dispute or action is pending. Again, based on the District's actions, it does not appear the District refused or delayed providing data to X because X had obtained data about one of his/her children within the previous six months. On November 1, 2000, the principal wrote to X stating, Enclosed are the items you have requested for [the child about whom Ms. Cameron alleges X previously had received data]. The records for [the other child] are still being prepared and when complete, we will forward those to you. The Commissioner is of the opinion that if the District were delaying or denying access pursuant to the six month provision, it would have made that argument to X at the time of X's request. It should also be noted that X has the right to gain access to data about his/her children pursuant to the Federal Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), which does not have a limitation comparable to the six month limitation that exists in Chapter 13. Ms. Cameron also argued that a delay in response time was justified because the District required clarification from X regarding the request. She wrote that the principal tried to reach X by telephone several times between September 25 and the end of October. Ms. Cameron stated, There was no answer and no way to leave a message for [X] by phone. The Commissioner has two comments. First, X's request seems quite clear; s/he wanted a copy of everything the District maintained about his/her children. Second, X specifically asked to have communications conducted in writing. It is not clear why the District did not send X a letter. Ms. Cameron further argued that a delay is excusable because of the circumstances. She wrote: The health records were located off-site, because [X's children] had withdrawn, and had to be retrieved and copied. The person who knew how to access the [communication device] records had had a stroke and another person had to be found who could retrieve these computerized records. The school year had just begun and many students needed their records copied and transferred, and the copy machine kept breaking down. As stated above, section 13.04, subdivision 3, requires that government entities respond to data subject requests within ten working days. The statute does not allow for exceptions. Finally, Ms. Cameron argued that X had most, if not all, of the records in [his/her] possession. She wrote, Thus, it appeared to staff that the school had very little, if any, additional records that [X] did not already have in [his/her] possession. Staff reasonably sought clarification from [X] about [his/her] request before incurring the expense of staff time and school resources to recopy all the records again for no apparent purpose whatsoever. Chapter 13 provides that a parent may gain access to data about his/her children. Whether or not the parent has copies of the data is irrelevant. The parent has the right to request and gain access to the data. Opinion:Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue that X raised is as follows:
Signed:
David F. Fisher
Dated: January 16, 2001 |
Data subjects
Educational data
Limit on frequency of access to data
Parental access to private data (13.02, subd. 8); (1205.0500)
