To return to this list after selecting an opinion, click on the "View entire list" link above the opinion title.
May 14, 1998; School District 317 (Deer River)
5/14/1998 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, except for any data classified as not public, are available for public access. On March 23, 1998, PIPA received a letter dated March 20, 1998, from Mark Anfinson, an attorney representing the Western Itasca Review. In his letter, Mr. Anfinson requested that the Commissioner issue an opinion regarding the newspaper's access to data maintained by School District 317, Deer River. PIPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Ray Pelton, Superintendent of District 317, in response to Mr. Anfinson's request. The purposes of this letter, dated March 25, 1998, were to inform him of Mr. Anfinson's request and to ask him to provide information or support for the District's position. On April 8, 1998, PIPA received comments, in a letter also dated April 8, 1998, from Sara Ruff, an attorney representing the District. A summary of the facts is as follows. Mr. Anfinson wrote, On March 16, 1998, [the District's School Board] adopted a resolution stating in pertinent part that a continuing contract employee employed by the School District is proposed for immediate discharge pursuant to Minnesota Statute 125.12 Subd. 8.' Mr. Anfinson stated that both the newspaper and he requested access to the employee's name but the requests were denied. He argued that, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.43, a final disposition of a disciplinary action has occurred; therefore, certain information about the employee are public and accessible to the newspaper. Issue:In his request for an opinion, Mr. Anfinson asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
Discussion:Minnesota Statutes Section 13.43 provides that certain government data about current and former employees are public, and that all other personnel data are private. Pursuant to Subdivision 2 (a) of Section 13.43, the following data are public: name; the existence and status of any complaints or charges against the employee, regardless of whether the complaint or charge resulted in a disciplinary action; and the final disposition of any disciplinary action together with the specific reasons for the action and data documenting the basis of the action, excluding data that would identify confidential sources who are employees of the public body. In this case, both the newspaper and Mr. Anfinson requested the name of the involved employee; the District denied the requests. Both Mr. Anfinson and Ms. Ruff discussed the data in question, i.e., name of the employee, in relation to whether a final disposition of the disciplinary action had occurred. However, given the information sought by the newspaper, that point is irrelevant. Pursuant to Section 13.43, subdivision 2 (a) (1) and (4), the name of the employee, whether a complaint or charge exists, and the status of the handling of the complaint or charge are always public. Ms. Ruff argued that based on Unke v. Independent School District No. 147, 510 N.W.2d 271 (Minn.App. 1994), rev. den., the name of the employee should not be public. She quoted the court as stating, We conclude that the school district violated the Data Practices Act by elaborating on the nature of the charge against Unke and failing to restrict its release of information to the existence of a complaint. While Ms. Ruff is correct that the court in Unke found that District 147 released not public data, the data found to be improperly released were data elaborating the charges against the employee, not the employee's name. Opinion:Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue raised by Mr. Anfinson is as follows:
Signed:
Elaine S. Hansen
Dated: May 14, 1998 |
Personnel data
Names of employees
Employee name
