August 11, 2006; Minnesota Department of Health
8/11/2006 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:On June 30, 2006, IPAD received a letter dated June 28, 2006, from Dave Orren, the data practices compliance officer and responsible authority designee for the Minnesota Department of Health. In his letter, Mr. Orren asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding the classification of certain data. A summary of the facts is as follows. In his opinion request, Mr. Orren wrote: Employee A prepares a written complaint alleging improper behavior by Employee B. Employee A submits a copy of the complaint to the agency and keeps a copy. Before any final disciplinary action is taken, Employee A discloses facts about the complaint to the media. Employee C was a witness to the incident between Employee A and Employee B. Employee C is interviewed about the incident and also prepares a written witness statement for the agency. Employee C submits a copy of the witness statement to the agency and keeps a copy. Before any final disciplinary action is taken, Employee C gives a copy of the witness statement to Employee A. Also before any final disciplinary action is taken, Employee A gives a copy of the witness statement to the media. Issues:Based on Mr. Orren's opinion request, the Commissioner agreed to address the following issues:
Discussion:Government data about current and former employees are classified by Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43. Subdivision 2 lists the types of data that are public and subdivision 4 classifies most other types of personnel data as private. In a situation where someone has complained about an employee, the following data are public pursuant to section 13.43, subdivision 2(a)(4): the existence and status of the complaint or charge. Additional data become public when the entity makes its final decision about disciplinary action and a final disposition occurs (see section 13.43, subdivisions 2(a)(5), and 2(b). In the situation Mr. Orren asked the Commissioner to address, no final disciplinary action has been taken. Issue 1:Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, is employee A's copy of the complaint government data? If yes, what is the classification? Section 13.02, subdivision 7, defines government data as all data collected, created, received, maintained, or disseminated by any government entity regardless of its physical form, storage media or conditions of use. Mr. Orren wrote that employee A prepared a written complaint about alleged improper behavior by employee B and that A kept a copy of the complaint. In the Commissioner's opinion, the data in the statement employee A provided to the Department are government data. The statement contains data the Department, a government entity, collected and maintains. The fact that A possesses a copy of his/her statement does not change the fact that the statement is government data. The Commissioner has not seen the complaint but assumes it contains data about both employee A and B. Because A and B are employees of the Department, data about them are classified pursuant to section 13.43. Regarding data about B, it would seem the only public data related to the complaint are the fact that a complaint was made and the status of the complaint. The remaining data about B presumably are private. The data about A in the complaint likely are private. Issue 2:What, if any, limitations are on employee A disclosing information to the media about the incident or the complaint? In this situation, employee A plays two roles. One is as an employee of the Department. The second is as a subject of data. Mr. Orren did not provide any information suggesting that A, in his/her role as an employee, is either the Department's responsible authority or a data practices designee. Thus, the Commissioner assumes A is not responsible for handling release of the Department's data nor does s/he have authority to release the Department's data. However, A also is a subject of some of the data. In this capacity, A has the right to release any data about him/her. Thus, A may release data about him/her but not other of the Department's data. Issue 3:Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, is employee C's copy of the witness statement government data? If yes, what is the classification? Similar to the discussion in Issue 1, employee C's copy of the witness statement is government data. The Commissioner has not seen the witness statement but assumes it contains data about employees A, B, and C. Data about A, B, and C are classified pursuant to section 13.43. Most of the data about A and C likely are private as are most of the data about B. (See also Issue 1.) Issue 4:Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, is employee A's copy of the witness statement government data? If yes, what is the classification? Similar to the discussion in Issue 1, employee A's copy of the witness statement is government data. See Issue 3 for comments about the classification. Issue 5:What, if any, limitations are on employee C in giving information or a copy of the witness statement to employee A or to the media? See Issue 2. Employee C can release only data about him/her. Issue 6:What, if any, limitations are on employee A in giving a copy of a witness statement to the media? See Issue 2. Employee A can release only data about him/her. Opinion:Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issues that Mr. Orren raised is as follows:
Signed:
Dana B. Badgerow
Dated: August 11, 2006 |
Personnel data
Employee release to media
Witness statement
Multiple data subjects
Witness identity or statement
