skip to content
Primary navigation

Opinion Library

To return to this list after selecting an opinion, click on the "View entire list" link above the opinion title.

Advisory Opinion 98-022

May 13, 1998; School District 197 (Mendota Heights)

5/13/1998 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, with the exception of any data classified as not public, are available for public access.

On March 19, 1998, PIPA received a letter from Sonja D. Kerr, an attorney, on behalf of her client, L. In her letter, Ms. Kerr asked the Commissioner to issue an opinion regarding L's rights as a subject of data maintained by Independent School District (ISD) 197, Mendota Heights. Ms. Kerr enclosed copies of related correspondence.

In response to Ms. Kerr's request, PIPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Robert Monson, Superintendent of ISD 197. The purposes of this letter, dated March 25, 1998, were to inform Mr. Monson of Ms. Kerr's request, and to ask him or the District's attorney to provide information or support for its position. On April 2, 1998, PIPA received a response from Mr. Monson. A summary of the detailed facts of this matter follows.

L is a former employee of ISD 197. According to Ms. Kerr, on December 3, 1997, L made a verbal request to Anthony G. Massaros, attorney and Supervisor of Human Resources for the District, to review all data the District maintains about her/him and then sent two letters to the District, repeating her/his request. L received no response to either letter. On December 8, 1997, L sent a certified letter that the District received on December 9, 1997. The District did not respond. L sent another letter on January 10, 1998, and received no response. L hired Ms. Kerr in February 1998. On February 17, 1998, Ms. Kerr spoke with Mr. Massaros, and asked that L be allowed to review her/his District employment file. In that conversation, Ms. Kerr also asked that she be sent a copy of L's personnel file. That same day, Ms. Kerr faxed a release of information to Mr. Massaros. On February 18, 1998, some 75 days after her/his initial verbal request, L reviewed the file. On February 23, 1998, Ms. Kerr received the copy of L's personnel file. Mr. Massaros has since left the District's employ.

In his response to the Commissioner, Mr. Monson wrote: [t]he District's failure to respond to [L's] initial requests was the inadvertent and unintended result of a combination of circumstances. According to Mr. Monson, Mr. Massaros received the initial requests at a time when he (Mr. Massaros) was fully occupied with numerous tasks, and had limited support staff available. Mr Monson wrote: [a]s the District has gone through the process of finding a replacement for Mr. Massaros it has also restructured and reorganized the responsibilities of the position which he held and the staff support it requires. We are confident that the inconvenience which [L] met will not be repeated in the future.


Issue:

In her request for an opinion, Ms. Kerr asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:

Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13, did Independent School District 197 respond appropriately to a data subject's verbal and written requests for access to data?


Discussion:

Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.04, subdivision 3, upon request from a data subject to inspect and/or obtain copies of data about him/her, the responsible authority shall comply immediately, if possible, or within five working days of the date of the request. If the responsible authority is unable to comply within that time, s/he may have an additional five working days within which to comply with the request, if the individual is so informed.

In L's case, the District made the data available 75 days after L's initial verbal request. Mr. Monson stated that the delay was inadvertent, and due to a number of circumstances. Nonetheless, pursuant to Section 13.04, subdivision 3, the District was required to respond to L's request within five working days. At most, with notice to L, the District should have responded within ten working days. The District did not meet its statutory obligation to L.

Meeting its statutory obligations includes not just providing data, but also establishing procedures to ensure that data requests are handled appropriately, pursuant to Section 13.05, subdivision 8. Doing so would help the District avoid similar problems in the future.


Opinion:

Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue raised by Ms. Kerr is as follows:

Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13, Independent School District 197 did not respond appropriately to a data subject's verbal and written requests for access to data. The District should have responded within five working days of the request.

Signed:

Elaine S. Hansen
Commissioner

Dated: May 13, 1998



back to top