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:

The City of Rosemount asked the Commissioner for an advisory opinion regarding the classification of certain data the City maintains under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 (Data Practices Act).

The City provided the following summary of facts:

In summer 2025, the City conducted a city-wide employee survey. Most of the questions were multiple choice and asked the employee to respond whether they strongly agreed, agreed, or disagreed with particular statements. The City also asked three open-ended questions:

Question No. 13: What aspects of the organization’s culture do you appreciate most?

Question No. 14: What suggestions do you have for improving the work environment?

Question No. 15: Do you have any additional comments, concerns, or suggestions to help improve your experience at the organization?

The answers to these three questions generated over 80 pages of comments from police department employees (specifically 6 pages for Question 13, 26 pages for Question 14, and 55 pages for Question 15). The most common subject of the comments were criticisms/concerns/complaints/negative comments . . . about [the former Rosemount police chief]. . . .

Because of the survey results, for various reasons, and after consultation with legal counsel, the City decided to proceed with separation of employment of [the former police chief] rather than proceed with a formal investigation or other alternative. The City communicated this intent to [the chief] and placed him on paid administrative leave. . . . [T]hereafter the parties negotiated and executed a separation agreement. [The chief] signed the agreement on November 10, 2025, and the agreement was fully executed when the City signed on December 3, 2025.

Issue:

Discussion:

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

Personnel data are classified by Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43 and are defined as “government data on individuals maintained because the individual is or was an employee of . . . a government entity.” If data are personnel data, then the presumption that the data are public is reversed. Section 13.43, subdivision 4 classifies personnel data as private if the data are not already classified as public in subdivisions 2 and 3.

Generally, only the existence and status of a complaint or charge against an employee are public data unless there is a final disposition of disciplinary action. (See section 13.43, subdivision 2(a)(4) and (5)).

However, section 13.43, subdivision 2(e)(5)(iii) identifies certain employees at municipal government entities as “public officials” and classifies specific disciplinary data about the public official as public government data if certain conditions are met.

Section 13.43, subdivision 2(f) states that data relating to a complaint or charge against an employee who is identified under subdivision 2(e)(5) become public when:

(1) the complaint or charge results in disciplinary action or the employee resigns or is terminated from employment while the complaint or charge is pending; or

(2) potential legal claims arising out of the conduct that is the subject of the complaint or charge are released as part of a settlement agreement.

Additionally, Section 13.43, subdivision 7a addresses employee suggestion data, stating:

Personnel data includes data submitted by an employee to a government entity as part of an organized self-evaluation effort by the government entity to request suggestions from all employees on ways to cut costs, make government more efficient, or improve the operation of government. An employee who is identified in a suggestion shall have access to all data in the suggestion except the identity of the employee making the suggestion.

The Commissioner has addressed employee survey data in a previous advisory opinion, explaining that responses to surveys that identify government employees are personnel data. (See Advisory Opinion 14-012.) Employee survey responses that are not identifiable to an employee are not data about an individual and therefore cannot be personnel data. Those responses that are not data on individuals are presumptively public data.

In its request to the Commissioner, the City stated it believed the data about the former police chief were classified as private personnel data under section 13.43 for two reasons. First, the City maintained that, under section 13.43, subd. 7a, “[T]he employee survey data on [the former chief] is private data and remains private data following his resignation.”

Second, the City suggested that the considerations of section 13.43, subd. 2(e) regarding disciplinary data about public officials was not applicable. The City wrote that it “did not conduct a formal investigation and did not at any point decide to proceed with such an investigation.” The City added that “[t]here was not a complaint or charge here, as is contemplated (but not defined) by the data practices act [sic].”

The Commissioner respectfully disagrees that all of the survey data are classified as personnel data under section 13.43. As established in Advisory Opinion 14-012, any de-identified survey responses maintained by the City are not personnel data under section 13.43. Rather, those survey responses are presumptively public data not on individuals. However, any data that identify an employee, including those data that identify the former police chief, are personnel data. The classification of the personnel data in the survey responses will depend on whether those data fall under a category of public data identified under section 13.43, subd. 2.

Section 13.43, subd. 2(f) states that data related to a complaint or charge against a local public official become public if “the complaint or charge results in disciplinary action or the employee results in disciplinary action or the employee resigns or is terminated from employment while the complaint or charge is pending.”

The Data Practices Act does not define “complaints or charges.” Consistent with Minnesota Statutes, section 645.08, past advisory opinions looked at the common usage and definitions for these terms, finding that what may constitute a complaint or charge is broad. (See Advisory Opinions 04-064 and 97-003).

The 5th Edition of the American Heritage Dictionary defines a “complaint,” in part, as an “expression of pain, dissatisfaction, or resentment” and a “cause or reason for complaining; a grievance.” It also defines “charge” as “to make a claim of wrongdoing against; accuse or blame” and “to put the blame for; attribute or impute.”

In its advisory opinion request, the City characterized the comments in the survey about the former police chief as “criticisms/concerns/complaints/negative comments.” (Emphasis added). The City’s own description of the survey data is that the comments contain “complaints” about the former police chief. Further, the City describing the comments as criticisms, concerns, and negative comments suggests these data are expressions of dissatisfaction about the former chief and are complaints or charges under the common usage of those terms.

Contrary to the City’s argument, section 13.43, subd. 2(f) does not require a formal personnel investigation for the public classification to apply. Rather, subdivision 2(f) requires only that there is a complaint or charge, and that the complaint or charge is “pending” when the public official resigns or is terminated for the data to become public. Here, “[b]ecause of the survey results,” the City consulted with legal counsel, placed the former police chief on administrative leave, and then sought a separation agreement with him. The chief agreed to resign from his employment as part of that agreement. The concerns raised in complaints from the employee survey were not resolved at the time of this resignation. Therefore, the complaints raised within the employee survey were pending at the time of the chief’s resignation, and all data related to those complaints, besides identifying data on other employees, are public under section 13.43 subd. 2(f).

The Commissioner also notes that when a local public official signs a settlement agreement that releases the government entity from any claims relating to conduct that is the subject of a complaint or charge, data relating to that complaint or charge are public. (See section 13.43, subd. 2(f)(2).) If the settlement agreement at issue here released claims related to the complaints in the survey results, then data related to complaint are classified as public under that provision, as well.

Opinion:

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

All data relating to the complaints and charges about the former police chief that were raised in the employee survey are public government data under Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43 subd. 2(f), except for any data that identify other government employees, because the former chief resigned while the charges were pending.

Signed:

Tamar Gronvall
Commissioner

March 17, 2026