To return to this list after selecting an opinion, click on the "View entire list" link above the opinion title.
June 11, 1997; School District 203 (Hayfield)
6/11/1997 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 April 14, 1997, PIPA received a letter, dated April 11, 1997, from Stephen Knutson and John O'Donnell, attorneys representing School District #203, Hayfield. In their letter Mr. Knutson and Mr. O'Donnell requested that the Commissioner issue an opinion regarding the classification of certain data maintained by the School District. Pursuant to subsequent telephone conversations between PIPA staff and Mr. Knutson, three issues were agreed upon. A summary of the facts surrounding this matter is as follows. Mr. Knutson and Mr. O'Donnell wrote that two individuals had, over the past four months, made various requests to gain access to the District's bank statements and canceled checks. As part of those requests, the individuals sought information specifically relating to data contained in canceled payroll checks.
Issues:
In their request for an opinion, Mr. Knutson and Mr. O'Donnell asked the Commissioner to address the following issues:
Discussion:
The first issue raised by Mr. Knutson and Mr. O'Donnell relates to specific data contained in canceled payroll checks. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13, a person's name and any endorsements (signature and bank account numbers) are data on individuals. This term is defined in Chapter 13 as all government data in which any individual is or can be identified as the subject of that data, unless the appearance of the name or other identifying data can be clearly demonstrated to be only incidental to the data and the data are not accessed by the name or other identifying data of any individual. (See Section 13.02, subdivision 5.) In addition, Minnesota Rules Section 1205.0200, subpart 4, states that data are data on individuals if those data identify an individual or if those data can be used in connection with other data elements to uniquely identify an individual.
Further, data on individuals who are employees of the Hayfield School District are classified pursuant to Section 13.43, personnel data. Subdivision 2 (a) of Section 13.43 sets forth the various types of personnel data that are public and classifies all other personnel data as private. An examination of the list of data in subdivision 2 (a) reveals that an employee's name is public but that bank account information is private. The other types of data described by Mr. Knutson and Mr. O'Donnell, i.e., the date of issue (the analysis in this opinion assumes that many checks are issued on the same date), the amount, and check number, are not, independently, data on individuals. In other words, if a government entity disseminated canceled payroll checks that displayed only the amount of each check, it would be impossible to determine which employee received how much pay. Thus, because the data described are not data on individuals, they are data not on individuals and, pursuant to the general presumption in Section 13.03, subdivision 1, are public. However, the issue raised by Mr. Knutson and Mr. O'Donnell involves a situation in which the individual data elements have been requested in conjunction with one another. When the check number and check amount (net pay) on a canceled check are associated with a specific person's name, (including an endorsing signature), those data become identifying information about that person. Pursuant to Chapter 13, those data have become data on individuals and, as such, are classified pursuant to Section 13.43. Subdivision 2 (a) of Section 13.43, provides that an employee's net pay is private personnel data. Therefore, the data subject's rights under Chapter 13 would be violated if the District were to release the check number, check amount, and/or endorsements in combination with the name of the data subject. The second issue raised by Mr. Knutson and Mr. O'Donnell is whether a government entity must respond to serial requests for public government data where the entity has provided the requested data in other formats and there has been no change in the data. Pursuant to Section 13.03, government entities have an obligation to respond to all requests for access to data. However, if the serial nature of various requests means that the requestor will ultimately come to possess not public data, the entity must be guided by its obligation under Chapter 13 to protect private data. An example may be helpful. A data requestor first asks to inspect the number, amount, and date printed on all canceled payroll checks. In such a combination, these data are data not on individuals and are public. One week later the requestor asks to inspect the date and name printed on the same group of payroll checks. Date of payroll check and employee name are data on individuals and are treated as public pursuant to Section 13.43, subdivision 2. One week later the requestor asks to inspect the check number and employee name on all canceled payroll checks. In itself, the fact that a specific individual has been issued a check is not protected data. However, in this example, because the check number, when associated with the specific employee, could result in the data requestor gaining access to the employee's net pay or endorsements, the check number is private data and should not be released. In regard to Mr. Knutson and Mr. O'Donnell's third question, Chapter 13 does not require a government entity to create data in a format in which those data do not exist. A government entity may choose to do so, but it is not required to do so. Opinion:Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issues raised by Mr. Knutson and Mr. O'Donnell is as follows:
Signed:
Elaine S. Hansen
Dated: June 11, 1997 |
Personnel data
Requests for data
Time sheets or payroll
Serial requests
