May 7, 1997; School District 0001 (Minneapolis)
5/7/1997 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: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 PIPA and, with the exception of any data classified as not public, are available for public access.On March 17, 1997, PIPA received a letter from Greta Morrison. In her letter, Ms. Morrison requested that the Commissioner issue an opinion regarding her access to certain government data maintained by Special School District No. 1, Minneapolis. PIPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Peter Hutchinson, Superintendent of Minneapolis Schools, in response to Ms. Morrison's request. The purposes of this letter dated March 20, 1997, were to inform him of Ms. Morrison's request and to ask him or the School District's attorney to provide information or support for the District's position. PIPA received a response, dated April 11, 1997, from James A. Cunningham, Jr., Assistant to the District General Counsel. A summary of the facts as presented by Ms. Morrison is as follows. In a letter dated December 19, 1996, Ms. Morrison requested the following from Minneapolis Schools: to see all of the education records about her daughter (a former student); a job description for Mr. Russ Thompson (an employee of the District); and to see teaching materials for grades K-3 used by actual teachers at Clara Barton school. In a letter dated February 3, 1997, Ms. Morrison received a response from Harlan Anderson. He wrote that Mr. Cunningham would be responding to her request about her daughter's school records and the job description. Mr. Anderson further wrote:
At the time Ms. Morrison addressed her letter to the Commissioner she stated that Minneapolis Schools had not responded to her request. Issues:
In her request for an opinion, Ms. Morrison asked the Commissioner to address the following issues:
Discussion:
Data maintained by educational institutions about students are classified pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.32. Subdivisions 1 and 3 of Section 13.32 provide generally that data about students are private. Private data are accessible to the data subject (and, in the case of educational data about a minor, the minor's parents) pursuant to Section 13.04, subdivision 3.
Regarding the first issue, Mr. Cunningham asserted that the District's response was appropriate. He stated that Ms. Morrison requested and was provided with a copy of her child's entire cumulative file in October of 1996. He noted that Section 13.04, subdivision 3, states that after an individual has been shown private data, those data need not be disclosed to that individual for six months thereafter unless a dispute or action related to the data is pending, or additional data on the individual have been collected/created. Mr. Cunningham stated that six months time had not elapsed between Ms. Morrison's having received access in October and her having requested access again in December. He added that on March 21, 1997, when the six months time had elapsed, Ms. Morrison was sent another copy of her child's cumulative file. Ms. Morrison's request was to see all of my daughter's...school records gathered by teachers, administrators, and/or other data collectors. Mr. Cunningham stated that she received access to her daughter's cumulative file. If the child's cumulative file is the equivalent of allher school records, and no dispute or action related to the data is pending nor has there been any additional collection/creation of data since October 1996, Minneapolis Schools is not required to provide access until April of 1997. However, given the facts as submitted by both parties, it is impossible for the Commissioner to determine whether the District has responded appropriately. If Ms. Morrison did gain access to data in October, but she did not see all the data, or a dispute is pending or additional data have been collected/created, Ms. Morrison should have been granted access prior to expiration of the six month time frame. Regarding the second issue, Mr. Cunningham responded that while a job description is public data (see Section 13.43, subdivision 2), Minneapolis Schools does not have a job description for Mr. Thompson; in other words, the data do not exist. Chapter 13 does not impose an obligation on government entities to create data that do not exist. However, pursuant to Section 13.03, subdivision 2, Minneapolis Schools does have an obligation to respond to requests for access to data in a prompt and appropriate manner. The lack of a response is neither prompt nor appropriate. In his letter dated February 3, 1997, Mr. Anderson stated that Mr. Cunningham would respond to Ms. Morrison's request regarding Mr. Thompson's job description. To the best of the Commissioner's knowledge, Ms. Morrison was not notified that the data about the job description do not exist. Therefore, it does not appear that the District responded appropriately to Ms. Morrison's request regarding the job description. The third issue raised by Ms. Morrison is whether Minneapolis Schools has responded properly to her request for access to teaching materials at Clara Barton School. In his response, Mr. Cunningham stated, [Ms. Morrison] has made numerous visits to Clara Barton School and seen firsthand the materials that are available. This statement is ambiguous and is in conflict with the information provided by Ms. Morrison. Ms. Morrison alleged in her March 1997 opinion request that the District had not responded to her request and, as of the date of this opinion, Ms. Morrison has not provided the Commissioner with information to the contrary. Furthermore, in two written communications to her (dated November 14, 1996, and February 3, 1997), the District stated that Ms. Morrison would be provided access to materials only if she identified those materials by name in her request. In addition, Mr. Cunningham's letter refers to materials that are available rather than to the teachingmaterials requested by Ms. Morrison. This is somewhat confusing given the February 3, 1997, letter from Mr. Anderson to Ms. Morrison. Mr. Anderson referred to the District's policies and regulations and stated the regulations require that the requestor, prior to reviewing materials, identify, in writing, the titles of the learning materials to be reviewed. He further wrote, Your blanket request to see all teaching materials used does not meet the guidelines established by our district policies and regulations. Assuming this is Minneapolis' policy, it is not in compliance with Chapter 13. Section 13.03 requires that government entities, upon request, provide access to public government data within a reasonable time and in a prompt manner (see Section 13.03, subdivision 1, and Minnesota Rules Section 1205.0300). School teaching materials are government data and, pursuant to Section 13.03, subdivision 2, are presumed public. Therefore, Ms. Morrison, upon request, has the right to inspect or obtain copies of those materials without having to first identify the titles of the materials. Her request was to inspect all teaching materials for grades 1-3. The District's obligation, under Chapter 13, is to provide her with access to those materials. Opinion:Based on the correspondence in this matter, my opinion on the issues raised by Ms. Morrison is as follows:
Signed: Elaine S. Hansen
Dated: May 7, 1997 |
Copy costs
Data subjects
Educational data
Existence of data
Requests for data
Response to data requests
Limit on frequency of access to data
Curriculum materials
Requestor must be informed
Education data
Data revealed in request determines entity response
