Facts and Procedural History:

Jeff Czeczok requested an advisory opinion from the Commissioner regarding the Independent School District 181’s – Brainerd Public Schools – response to a request for data pursuant to the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 (Chapter 13). The Commissioner did not receive comments from the school district in response to Mr. Czeczok’s opinion request.

In response to a May 5, 2019, data request, Mr. Czeczok inspected data on July 15, 2019. One of the items he inspected was an email from a school district employee to another school district employee, dated September 21, 2017, which was entitled “Contacts.” This email contained an attachment entitled “google.csv.” The attachment to this email was not provided to Mr. Czeczok during inspection.

Following his inspection of responsive data, Mr. Czeczok submitted additional data requests to the school district for the email attachment, including requests dated July 25, 2019 and August 8, 2019. The school district provided multiple responses to Mr. Czeczok’s requests. In its September 11, 2019, response, the school district stated that the requested email attachment contained an employee’s email contact list and indicated the contact list was private personnel data. 

Issue:

Discussion:

Government data are defined as, “all data collected, created, received, maintained or disseminated by any government entity regardless of its physical form, storage media or conditions of use.” (Minnesota Statutes, section 13.02, subdivision 7). Government data are public unless classified by statute, temporary classification, or federal law. (Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 1).

When a government entity receives a request from an individual who is not the subject of the data, the entity is required to respond in an appropriate and prompt manner, and within a reasonable amount of time. (Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 2(a) and Minnesota Rules, part 1205.0300). If the government entity denies access to data due to its not public classification, the entity must cite the specific authority that classifies the data as not public. (Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 3(f)). 

Government data on individuals maintained because an individual is or was an employee of a government entity are classified by Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43. Section 13.43, subdivision 2, lists the various types of personnel data classified as public and subdivision 4 provides that all other personnel data are private, and therefore not accessible to members of the public.

Here, the school district responded to Mr. Czeczok’s requests for the email attachment within a reasonable amount of time. In its response, the school district indicated the attachment contained an employee’s contact list, asserting that such a list is classified as private personnel data. The school district relied on Advisory Opinion 02-003 in its assertion, arguing that employee contact lists are akin to employee calendars, which may contain private data about government employees, and as a result, employee contact lists would be classified as private as well. 

However, in Advisory Opinion 02-003, the Commissioner indicated that the employee calendar at issue also contained certain data that documented public business of the government entity, such as telephone register information. This opinion clarified that “Chapter 13 classifies data, not files or records.” The Commissioner stated, “the [government entity] must provide public data contained in the calendar/register, i.e., data that document public business, even if those data are commingled with not pubic data.”

The Commissioner reiterates that Chapter 13 classifies data, rather than entire records or documents. The school district stated that the email attachment requested by Mr. Czeczok contains a school district employee’s “contacts from his [d]istrict email.” A list of contacts may contain public data and/or not public data, depending on the contacts within the list. If contacts are maintained in order to conduct public business, or the contacts are maintained in order for the government employee to perform his or her job duties, these contacts are likely not about the employee. Rather, these contacts would be about the business the employee is conducting. As a result, such contacts would not be appropriately classified as private personnel data. The fact that an individual maintains a list of contacts does not, by itself, make the contacts about that individual. However, if certain contacts within the list would reveal private data about the employee, such as an employee’s personal contact information, family member/dependent contact information, or other personal contacts unrelated to the public business conducted by the employee, those contacts may be redacted as private personnel data or potentially “personal” data (i.e., data that are not government data - see Advisory Opinion 01-075).

The Commissioner has not reviewed a copy of the email attachment at issue in this opinion, and as a result, she is unable to determine whether the contacts are about the government employee, or whether the contacts document public business. If contacts within the email attachment document public business and do not reveal private data or personal data about the school district employee, they are not data about the employee, and thus cannot be classified as private personnel data. The Commissioner also notes that government entities must separate public and not public data at no cost to the requester per section 13.03, subdivision 3(c).

Opinion:

Based on the facts and information provided, the Commissioner’s opinion on the issue raised is as follows:

If the email attachment maintained by Independent School District 181 contains public data, it must provide the requester access to those data.

Signed:

Alice Roberts-Davis  
Commissioner

March 3, 2020