To return to this list after selecting an opinion, click on the "View entire list" link above the opinion title.
February 9, 1998; University of Minnesota
2/9/1998 10:14:43 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 PIPA and, with the exception of any data classified as not public, are available for public access. On December 4, 1997, PIPA received a letter dated December 2, 1997, from Eldora Runningen, an advocate working on behalf of O. In her letter, Ms. Runningen requested that the Commissioner issue an opinion regarding O's access to certain data maintained by the University of Minnesota. After subsequent discussions between PIPA staff and Ms. Runningen, one issue was agreed upon. PIPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Tracy Smith, Associate General Counsel for the University of Minnesota, in response to Ms. Runningen's request. The purposes of this letter, dated December 19, 1997, were to inform her of Ms. Runningen's request and to ask her to provide information or support for the University's position. On January 12, 1998, PIPA received a response, dated January 8, 1997, from Barbara Shiels, Associate General Counsel for the University. A summary of the facts surrounding this matter is as follows. O is an employee of the University who apparently was disciplined. O is apparently seeking access to information regarding the discipline. In a letter dated June 26, 1997, Ms. Runningen, on behalf of O, wrote to the University's Responsible Authority and requested access to the names of the complainant [sic] of three letters. Ms. Runningen also wrote, Please provide the three letters in their entirety... In a letter dated July 16, 1997, the University responded by denying access to those data, citing Minnesota Statutes Section 13.43. In a letter dated August 4, 1997, Ms. Runningen wrote again to the University, expressing her disappointment with the University's determination. She again asked the University to provide the three letters in their entirety and also that the University specify the particular subdivision of 13.43 that the refusal falls under. Issue:In her request for an opinion, Ms. Runningen asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
Discussion:At a previous time, O obtained copies of the three complaint documents which are the subject of this opinion. When O received copies of those documents, some of the data had been redacted by the University. O then requested access to the names of the complainant [sic] and also asked for the letters in their entirety. As part of her opinion request, Ms. Runningen submitted copies of the three letters (as redacted) to the Commissioner. Regarding Ms. Runningen's June 26, 1997, letter, Ms. Shiels wrote: [In a letter dated July 16, 1997, the University denied] access to the requested information on the ground that the identity of the complainants was private data under Minnesota Statutes 13.43....It is apparent from reviewing the complaints at issue...that they were raised by employees at the University...The substance of the complaints is data about [O], and accordingly, it was provided to [O] by the University...However, the identity of the complainants was data about the complainants themselves. Ms. Shiels asserted that pursuant to Section 13.43, subdivision 2, the identity of a University employee who makes a complaint is private data about the complainant. Ms. Shiels also stated that because the data request was made pursuant to Section 13.03, not 13.04, the University responded within the statutory guidelines by providing the data in a prompt manner and within a reasonable time. Upon an examination of the complaint letters, it appears that the only data redacted from the letters are data that would identify other University employees. As evident from both the original response from the University and the comments submitted by Ms. Shiels, the University has made a determination that a release of those data would be a release of private data about other University employees. The University has correctly classified the data as private under Section 13.43, subdivision 2, as they were collected, in part, because the complainants are employees of the University. In responding to the issue of a timely response to Ms. Runningen's request, Ms. Shiels asserted that the University abided by the statutory guidelines. She wrote that because the request was made pursuant to Section 13.03 (request for public data), not Section 13.04 (request for data by a data subject), the University had more time to respond; the response time for Section 13.03 requests is to be prompt and within a reasonable time and for Section 13.04 requests is to be within ten working days. Ms. Shiels argued that the University's three week response time falls within the time frame set forth in Section 13.03. In her initial request for data, Ms. Runningen wrote, As an advocate for [O], I am seeking information under [Chapter 13]. [O's] signature is provided authorizing my access to this information. In addition, the final sentence of the letter states, I hereby authorize Eldora Runningen, as my advocate, to have access to private data about me held by the University. These statements strongly suggest that Ms. Runningen made her request presuming the data, including names of complainants, were data about her client (O). Thus, assuming the request was made per Section 13.04, the University had ten working days to respond and was required, before expiration of the first five days, to notify Ms. Runningen that the full ten days would be necessary. Given that Ms. Runningen's letter is dated June 26, 1997, and the University's response is dated July 16, 1997, it appears unlikely that the University met the statutory requirement for a timely response. However, because the Commissioner does not know when the University received the request, she cannot be absolutely sure. Regarding Ms. Runningen's August 4, 1997, letter, Ms. Shiels wrote: There is no requirement in the Data Practices Act to respond to a letter expressing disappointment with an earlier response. Furthermore, the University satisfied its obligation under the Act by citing in its July 16 letter the section of the statute on which it based its response. The Act requires the responsible authority to cite a specific statutory section , when denying access to data....The act does not require a cite to a specific subdivision of the specific statutory section. Since the University satisfied its obligations under the Act in its July 16 letter, it had no further obligation to respond to Ms. Runningen's letter of August 4, 1997. The Commissioner agrees with Ms. Shiels analysis. The University had already responded to Ms. Runningen's request for copies of the three letters. Further, there is no requirement in Section 13.04 that the University respond to a request for the particular subdivision under which a denial of access was made. Although it may have helped to resolve the dispute in an expedient manner, the University was under no legal obligation to respond. Opinion:Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue raised by Ms. Runningen is as follows:
Signed:
Elaine S. Hansen
Dated: February 9, 1998 |
Personnel data
Denial of access to data – authority required (13.03, subd. 3(f))
Complainant identity
