Discussion:

Issue 1

Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43, subdivision 3, classifies data about current and former applicants for employment. The following applicant data are public: veteran status; relevant test scores; rank on eligible list; job history; education and training; and work availability. An applicant's name becomes public when that person is selected to be interviewed by the appointing authority. At that point, the applicant has become a finalist.

X requested access to the following applicant data: name; address; veteran status; test scores, including supporting documentation and interview notes; rank; job history; education and training, including licensure information; and work availability. X also asked the District to indicate the name of the selected candidate for each of the nine social work positions that were recently filled and their building assignments.

Based on the documentation provided to the Commissioner, it appears the District provided X with the following applicant information: veteran's status; job history; education and training; and work availability. In addition, it appears that the District provided X with the names of the nine people whom the District hired in 2000, but it does not appear the District provided information about their building assignments. Therefore, the Commissioner will address whether the District should have provided X with names, addresses, test scores - including supporting documentation and interview notes, licensure information, and rank on eligible list about applicants, and the building assignments for the nine new social workers.

As stated above, the name of an applicant for employment becomes public when that person is selected to be interviewed by the appointing authority. In this case, the District asserts that a search team interviewed the applicants. Because the School Board, not the search team, is the appointing authority, the names of the applicants are not public. In his September 12, 2000, letter, Dr. Dragseth wrote:

In the present situation, the School Board did not interview any of the applicants. It also did not delegate the hiring decision to the search committee. Instead, the search committee, made up of non-School Board members, reviewed applications and narrowed the applicant pool to a group of individuals. The committee then interviewed applicants and made a recommendation to the School Board. As appointing authority for the district, the School Board made the hiring decision without itself interviewing the applicants. Therefore, in this case, there were no finalists as that term is defined in Minn. Stat. section 13.43 Subd. 3. Therefore, the names of the applicants remain private.

The Commissioner opines that the District has reached the correct conclusion. In this case, the appointing authority - the School Board - did not interview the applicants. Therefore, their names are not public. The Commissioner would like to add, however, that the District's hiring process, in this case, could effectively circumvent the intention behind requiring entities to make public the names of finalists. If the process is set up so that no candidates are interviewed by the appointing authority, the only name made public is that of the person who is hired. This does not allow for the public check clearly intended by the Legislature when it enacted section 13.43, subdivision 3.

Regarding addresses of applicants, such data are private pursuant to section 13.43, subdivision 4, and not available to X.

X also asked for test scores, including supporting documentation and interview notes. Section 13.43, subdivision 3, provides that relevant test scores are public. Dr. Dragseth wrote that the District did not conduct any tests on applicants. He stated, Therefore, there are no test scores to disclose to you. It is the Commissioner's opinion that the term relevant test scores relates to tests that a prospective employer administers to prospective employees. Therefore, if the District does not have any test score data, it cannot provide such information to X.

In addition to education and training data, which the District provided, X requested access to licensure information. The District refused to provide the licensure information. Dr. Dragseth wrote, I do not agree with your conclusion that the term education and training' includes licensure. Licensure information is not one of the types of data listed as public in section 13.43, subdivision 3. Therefore, such data are not available to X. Some types of licensing data are available to X from the licensing board. See section 13.41.

Pursuant to section 13.43, subdivision 3, rank on eligible list is public. The District provided applicant data to X in chart form. The chart has a column for rank in which the District noted that each applicant was either a non-finalist or a finalist. Subdivision 3 of section 13.43 states that rank on eligible list is public. If the District has an eligibility list with rankings, the applicant's rank is public and the District should have provided that information to X. If the District does not have a list, it should have advised X that such data do not exist.

Regarding X's request for the building assignments for the nine new social workers, pursuant to section 13.43, subdivision 2 (7), an employee's work location is public. The District was required to provide X with a work location for each of the nine employees.

Issue 2

Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.04, the District was required to respond to X's request for data about him/herself within ten working days. X asked for data about him/herself in a letter dated August 11, 2000. Attached to a letter dated August 22, 2000, - within the ten day time frame - the District provided X with some data. Dr. Dragseth wrote, I have also enclosed a packet containing all public and private data on you as an applicant.

In his/her August 24, 2000, letter, X wrote back and asserted that s/he did not receive all data to which s/he was entitled. X wrote, I am aware that both [certain people] contacted several of my references and asked numerous questions. All that information is missing.

In his letter dated August 28, 2000, Dr. Dragseth wrote:

Enclosed please find data related to inquiries made to one of your references. This information was inadvertently omitted from the data previously sent to you. We are unable to locate the reference check performed by [a person]. If we are able to locate it, we will forward a copy to you.

X made his/her request on August 11. The District provided X with data on August 22 (within the ten day time frame) and on August 28 (outside the ten day time frame). Pursuant to section 13.04, the District did not provide the reference check data within the statutorily prescribed time frame, although the omission appears to have been inadvertent.

Further, X alleges that the District did not provide him/her with all data responsive to his/her request. The District asserts that it responded to the request in full. The Commissioner cannot make a determination one way or the other. However, if the District maintains additional data about X, e.g., the reference check Dr. Dragseth referred to in his August 28 letter, it should provide any such data to X immediately. If the District used data in the reference check to make a decision about hiring X, the data are official records within the meaning of Minnesota Statutes, section 15.17 and Minnesota Statutes, section 138.163, et. seq. The District should have both maintained the data and made them available to X.

Opinion:

Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issues that X raised is as follows:

Signed:

David F. Fisher
Commissioner

Dated: November 3, 2000