Facts and Procedural History:

District 742 employed X as a principal at one of its elementary schools. District 742 maintained a personnel file and a separate building file about X. The building file contained references to her job performance and comments from the public. In addition to these files, District 742 also had other documents concerning X which were kept by the District's superintendent. These documents consisted of notes of meetings, notes of discussions, correspondence directed to the superintendent and a few other miscellaneous documents.

In a letter dated May 25, 1994, Mr. Dale G. Swanson, X's attorney, asked Ms. Lenore Janman, District 742's acting superintendent, for copies of . . . all data of which she (X) is the subject. He elaborated on this request by pointing out that the request was not to be limited by what District 742 might consider to be files about X, or her personnel file but was intended to be . . . coextensive with the breadth of access described in the Data Practices Act . . . . Mr. Swanson enclosed a signed and dated request from his client in which she requested . . . copies of any and all data collected, created, received, maintained or disseminated by Independent District No. 742 of which I am a subject, wherever generated, however filed and wherever stored.

District 742 decided it would release the personnel file and the building file to X. The District initially decided to request the district court to review the other documents in camera and to determine if they were releasable by court order pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.32, subdivision 3. After further discussion with Mr. Swanson, Mr. Hansmeier agreed with Mr. Swanson that the issue, summarized in the Issue section below, would instead be submitted as a request for an opinion to the Commissioner of Administration, hereinafter Commissioner.

Issue:

Discussion:

The issue presented here is very similar to the issue presented to the Commissioner in a opinion she issued on May 25, 1994, concerning the right of an employee of the City of Brooklyn Park to gain access to data maintained about him by his supervisor. In that situation, the city took the position that certain data maintained by supervisors about employees under their supervision were not government data for purposes of the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13 and hereinafter Chapter 13 or the Act. In her May 25, 1994 opinion, the Commissioner concluded that not only were the data in question government data but that the data were also private personnel data and accessible by the employee.

In this instance, District 742's position appears to be that as these documents were not kept in the files the District has labeled personnel file or building file, an individual who is a subject of data contained in these documents is not entitled to the data in the documents. However, in enacting Minnesota Statutes Section 13.43, the legislature did not define personnel data as data contained in official personnel files. The legislature actually provided a very broad definition of personnel data by stating that: . . . 'personnel data' means data on individuals collected because the individual is or was an employee of. . . a . . . political subdivision. . . . (Minnesota Statutes Section 13.43, subdivision 1.) There appeared to be no dispute that X was employed by District 742. District 742 is a political subdivision for purposes of Chapter 13. (See Minnesota Statutes Section 13.02, subdivision 11.) Whatever data are actually contained in the documents in dispute appear to have been created, collected, received or maintained by the former superintendent because X was an employee of District 742.

In enacting Minnesota Statutes Section 13.04, subdivision 3, that provides individuals with access to private or public government data maintained about them, the legislature acknowledged that information stored about individuals, as it is used by government entities to make decisions, can have a great effect on the lives of those individuals. By giving individuals access to public and private government data maintained about them, the legislature has given individuals the power to see data that affects their lives, to determine what impact those data may have had on decisions made about them and to determine if the data maintained about them are accurate, complete and current. As more and more data are kept on individuals, the importance of the rights of individuals to gain access to data maintained about them becomes increasingly important.

Personnel data maintained about public employees are a type of data that can have immense significance for the professional and even the personal life of the employee. Decisions to offer employment, to keep someone employed, or to promote an employee are examples of critical decisions that are made on the basis of personnel data. The legislature acknowledged the criticality of those decisions by providing that, with certain exceptions, personnel data are private and are therefore accessible by an employee or former employee of a government entity. By providing a broad definition of personnel data and by providing for employee access to personnel data, the legislative policy clearly controls the answer to the issue presented here. For purposes of data subjects' rights to gain access to data maintained about them by their former employer, it makes no difference if the employer chooses to categorize the data in question as personal notes or files are not official files or data provided by others with an expectation of privacy. The data X seeks access to are within the definition of personnel data as stated in Section 13.43. It does not appear that District 742 has a basis for classifying these data as confidential. The data are private personnel data and copies of its should be provided to her.

It is possible that the letters referred to in Ms. Janman's affidavit may be letters from individuals who discussed data concerning students or other staff of District 742. It is not clear from the information provided by District 742 just what is contained in the letters. If the contents of the letters, either in whole or in part, are educational data, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.32, or personnel data on other employees of District 742, then it may be necessary for the District to withhold some or all of the content from X. Except for letters that contain data classified as not public, a letter sent to an entity subject to Chapter 13 will normally, upon its arrival in the government entity, be subject to the presumption in Minnesota Statutes Section 13.03, subdivision 1, that all government data, including those letters received by a government entity, are public. In the case of letters of complaints concerning a public employee, the complainant clearly has no recognized expectation of privacy. (See Demers v. City of Minneapolis, 468 N.W. 2d 71 (Minn. 1991).)

Opinion: