This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued under Minnesota Statutes, section 13.072 (2025). It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.

Facts and Procedural History:

Independent School District No. 831, Forest Lake Area Schools (District), asked for an advisory opinion regarding the classification of data about elected school board members under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 (Data Practices Act).

The District provided the following summary of facts:

A citizen has made a data request to the School District seeking “all public data concerning the hiring or retention of a law firm or individual to conduct an investigation on behalf of [the School District] as authorized during the May 15, 2025 School Board meeting.” Among other categories, the data request specifically seeks: “[a]ny public reports, summaries, or findings generated as a result of the investigation.” The investigation authorized by the School District’s governing Board concerned alleged misconduct of a Board member. At the time of the data request, the investigation was ongoing, and no report existed; however, a report has since been completed.

The School District seeks guidance on the proper standard for determining the classification of data regarding a Board member. …

Issue:

Discussion:

The Data Practices Act presumes government data are public, unless otherwise classified as not public. (Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 1.)

Personnel data are classified under Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43. Personnel data are defined as “government data on individuals maintained because the individual is or was an employee of or an applicant for employment by, performs services on a voluntary basis for, or acts as an independent contractor with a government entity.”

Past advisory opinions have established that a government entity must determine whether its elected officials are “employees” for the purposes of the Data Practices Act’s classifications under section 13.43. (See Advisory Opinions 16-001, 03-011, 02-013, 01-039, and 95-041.) The Commissioner’s consistent analysis in these opinions is that the government entity is in the best position to make this determination.

Further, the Minnesota Court of Appeals agreed with this approach in a non-precedential opinion. (See Krout v. City of Greenfield, No. A11-1200, 2012 WL 1253090 (Minn. Ct. App. Apr. 16, 2012).) Specifically, the Court wrote, “Allowing government units to decide whether their elected officials are employees also comports with the fundamental purpose of the [Data Practices Act].”

If an elected official is not an employee for Data Practices Act purposes, then data about that official are presumptively public. If an elected official is an employee, then only the personnel data about that official identified under section 13.43, subdivision 2 are public. All other personnel data about the elected official are classified as private under section 13.43, subdivision 4.

In its request, the District wrote:

In this situation, neither the governing board nor members of the School District’s administration have, to date, made any determination or taken any affirmative action on whether board members are “employees” for purposes of Minn. Stat. § 13.43. The School Board has not adopted a resolution, and there is no documentation reflecting any determination or previous action by the Superintendent, Human Resources staff, the responsible authority, or any other District official regarding the “employee” status of board members under the MGDPA.

As noted in past advisory opinions, government entities are in the best position to determine whether elected officials are employees for data practices purposes, and the Commissioner declines to dictate specific processes for how those determinations must be made. Each government entity can establish its own procedure to decide whether its elected officials are employees.

However, the processes and procedures an entity uses to make such determinations cannot be done on an ad hoc basis. Rather, a government entity must affirmatively decide to designate its elected officials as employees, if it chooses to do so, and the entity should clearly document that decision. An entity cannot rely on past practices or other similar arguments to determine that an elected official is an employee in order to classify data about the official as private under section 13.43 upon receiving a data request.

If a government entity has not made the affirmative determination that its elected officials are employees for data practices purposes, then data about the official would fall under the Data Practices Act’s public presumption unless another statutory section, temporary classification, or federal law applies.

Here, the District has not acted to designate the elected school board members as employees for data practices purposes. Additionally, no other section in the Data Practices Act classifies complaints or investigative data related to misconduct allegations against an elected school board member as private or confidential data.

Therefore, it is the Commissioner’s opinion that the data in the investigative report concerning the elected school board member’s alleged misconduct are presumptively public.

Opinion:

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

The data about an elected school board member in an investigative report concerning the member’s alleged misconduct are presumptively public because the school district has not made an affirmative determination that its elected officials are “employees” for the purposes of the Data Practices Act’s classifications of personnel data under section 13.43.

Signed:

Tamar Gronvall
Commissioner

February 25, 2026