April 6, 2000; School District 272 (Eden Prairie)
4/6/2000 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 IPA and, except for any data classified as not public, are available for public access. On February 17, 2000, IPA received a letter dated February 15, 2000, from X. In his letter, X requested that the Commissioner issue an advisory opinion regarding his access to certain data that School District 272, Eden Prairie, maintains about his child. X's child is a student in the District. IPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Dr. William Gaslin, Superintendent of the District, in response to X's request. This February 29, 2000, letter served to inform him of X's request and to ask him to provide information or support for the District's position. On March 8, 2000, IPA received a response, dated March 7, 2000, from Joseph Flynn, an attorney representing the District. A summary of the facts is as follows. In his letter, X stated that on October 1, 1999, he wrote to the school principal and requested a list of all the assignments given to his child in a particular course. X attached a copy of this memo to his opinion request. X requested the following: a complete listing of any work or activity for which points were assigned and which was a part of [his/her] grade for [a particular term]. The principal wrote back in a letter dated October 25, 1999. He stated: The purpose of this letter is to inform you why I have not honored your request for specific information about [X's child's class]. The Superintendent of Schools, Dr. William Gaslin has requested that I not grant your request until after a meeting that you have scheduled with him on November 1...I am hoping that this issue and your other concerns can be addressed at that time. In his opinion request, X wrote about the October 25 letter. He stated: This October 25 letter also falsely states that I scheduled this proposed meeting when in actual fact the District has no documentation that I scheduled or requested any such meeting; it was the Superintendent who scheduled this proposed meeting without my consent and then tried to require my attendance. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did School District 272, Eden Prairie, respond appropriately to a parent's request for data about his child? Issue:In his request for an opinion, X asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
Discussion:Data about students are termed educational data and are classified at Minnesota Statutes, section 13.32. Generally speaking, educational data are private. See section 13.32, subdivision 2. Pursuant to section 13.04, and section 13.02, subdivision 8, private educational data about minors are accessible to their parents. Further, a government entity must respond to a request for private data within ten working days. (See section 13.04, subdivision 3.) In his response to the Commissioner, Mr. Flynn wrote: Please be advised that it is not and has not been the position of the [District] that [X] is not entitled to the data referred to in his letter dated February 15, 2000. Rather, the issue addressed in [X's] correspondence relates to a long-standing conflict between the School District administration and [X] as to the specificity of and clarity relating to the information that [X] was seeking. Moreover, the School District had made numerous attempts to schedule a meeting with [X] in order to clarify and facilitate the transmission of the information. On numerous occasions [X] declined to cooperate. Mr. Flynn further wrote: We are, however, pleased to report that we believe the underlying issue raised in [X's] February 15, 2000 letter to you has been successfully addressed. Enclosed for your information is a copy of a letter dated February 23, 2000, enclosing numerous pages in response to various requests by [X]. I believe this addresses the information that has been sought by [X]. In light of Mr. Flynn's comments, IPA staff contacted X who stated that he wished to move forward with the opinion. In a March 31, 2000, memo to IPA, X wrote, Though the District did belatedly provide the information some five months after I filed this complaint, its original actions were in possible violation of my rights... As stated above, section 13.04 requires government entities to respond within ten working days to data subjects' requests for data. In this case, X requested data about his child in a letter dated October 1, 1999. The District apparently did not provide the data until the end of February. Therefore, because the District took more that ten working days to respond, it violated X's rights under Chapter 13. Further, there is no provision in Chapter 13 that allows the District to make X's access to data about his child contingent upon his appearing at a meeting with school officials. Opinion:Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue X raised is as follows:
Signed: David F. Fisher
Dated: April 6, 2000 |
