August 7, 2003; School District 832 (Mahtomedi)
8/7/2003 10:17:43 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 27, 2003, IPAD received a letter from X. In this letter, X asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding his/her right to gain access to certain data maintained by Independent School District 832, Mahtomedi. In response to X's request, IPAD, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Mark Wolak, Superintendent of the District. The purposes of this letter, dated June 30, 2003, were to inform him of X's request and to ask him to provide information or support for the District's position. On July 18, 2003, IPAD received a response from Karen Kepple, attorney for the District. A summary of the facts of this matter follows. X's child, Y, was a student in the District. In a letter dated June 5, 2003, X wrote to Dr. Wolak and requested the following data about Y: copies of any and all documents, invoices, check-off lists, payment receipts, etc. pertaining to [Y's] ordering and paying for a High School Yearbook. In a letter dated June 13, 2003, Dr. Wolak responded to X. Dr. Wolak referred to X's June 5 e-mail. (As noted above, X provided the Commissioner with a copy of a letter dated June 5, 2003. The Commissioner assumes that the June 5 e-mail and letter have the same content.) In his response to X, Dr. Wolak stated: The records which you requested regarding the transaction of a yearbook order for [Y] are not available at this time. The teacher advisor who manages the yearbook is out of the country and cannot be reached. However, with the help of Principal Kevin Mackin, we were able to gather information that may be helpful to you. A yearbook with the imprinted name of [Y] is available at Mahtomedi High School. You can pick that copy up by contacting Mr. Mackin . . . . It is my understanding that, with the help of a student, . . . you received a yearbook for [Y] but it was a duplicate and did not have [Y's] name imprinted on it. You may return the duplicate if you wish to receive the imprinted copy. In her comments to the Commissioner, Ms. Kepple stated: The initial data request was dated June 5, 2003 and the school district responded in writing on June 13, 2003, through Superintendent Mark Wolak, well within the ten days required by Minn. Stat. section 13.04, Subd. 3. Given this request was made during the week of graduation and the second to last day of school for the 2002-2003 year, and that the yearbook advisor was out of the country for several weeks within days after the request was made, an immediate response was not possible, and Dr. Wolak's initial response to the request was timely and most appropriate. Issue:In his/her request for an opinion, X asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
Discussion:Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.04, subdivision 3, when an individual requests access to data of which s/he is the subject, the government entity is required to provide access to the data within ten working days. Provisions of both Minnesota and federal law govern access to data about students. Section 13.32 classifies data relating to students (termed educational data ) and incorporates by reference much of the federal Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), 20 U.S.C. section1232g, and its implementing Rules, 34 CFR Part 99. Subject to limited exceptions, educational data (termed education records under FERPA) are private and may not be released without consent. Under both state and federal law, parents are generally entitled to gain access to educational data of their minor children. (See FERPA, section 1232g(a)(1)(A), Minnesota Statutes section 13.02, subdivision 8, and Minnesota Rules Part 1205.0500, subpart 4, for more information and some exceptions.) The Commissioner has no information to suggest that X is precluded from gaining access to data about Y. The Commissioner acknowledges that circumstances can arise that make it more difficult for government entities to fulfill their duties under Chapter 13. Nevertheless, the District was obligated, per section 13.04, subdivision 3, to provide X with access to the data requested within ten working days. The statute does not provide additional time for mitigating circumstances. Ms. Kepple stated that an immediate response was not possible, because the person handling yearbook requests was not available shortly after the District received X's request. Compliance with Chapter 13 should not depend upon whether or not one specific person is available to respond to a data request. Government entities must enact policies and procedures for managing government data so that they are able to respond properly within the statutory time frames, with the personnel available when they receive a data request. Also, the District's initial response to X was misleading. According to Ms. Kepple: Regarding the parent's claim that the school district did not release the requested data supporting the purchase of the yearbook, as indicated earlier, the yearbook advisor was out of the country shortly after the data request was made, and the district responded as soon as possible upon her return with a search for these records. As it turns out, there is no such data available to release and the District is not obligated to create non-existing data to satisfy a data practices request.. . . . The students of Mahtomedi High School or their parents place orders for yearbooks directly with the publisher and remit payment directly to the publisher. The school then distributes the yearbooks based upon the purchasing list provided by the publisher. Apparently, most or all of the data X asked for is not maintained by the District, but rather by the yearbook publisher. Nothing the Commissioner has reviewed indicates that the publisher is obligated to provide X with access to data it maintains about Y, but the Commissioner cannot make that determination. The District ought to have been able to tell X at the time of his/her request that the District does not maintain any data responsive to that request. It appears that the first time the District communicated that it has no data is in its response to the Commissioner. The District should have told X that it had no data in its June 13, 2003, response to X's request. However, the Commissioner is not certain that the District is correct. X asked for a copy of a check-off list and Ms. Kepple said that the publisher provided the District with a purchasing list, which, in the possession of the District, is government data. Those descriptions sound similar. If data about Y are on the purchasing list provided to the District by the publisher, the District should make the portion of that list that contains data about Y available to X immediately. With respect to the Superintendent having identified Y's friend as the possible recipient/conveyor of a duplicate yearbook (the parties dispute the facts, which the Commissioner cannot resolve), any dissemination of data to X about another student does not affect X or Y's rights as data subjects. The other student or his/her parents may request an opinion from the Commissioner if they believe his/her rights were violated. Opinion:Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue raised by X is as follows:
Signed:
Brian J. Lamb
Dated: August 7, 2003 |
