Opinion Library

To return to this list after selecting an opinion, click on the "View entire list" link above the opinion title.

RSS feed

Advisory Opinion 96-019

April 29, 1996; School District 876 (Annandale)

4/29/1996 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.

Note: In December 1999, staff of the Information Policy Analysis Division, on behalf of the Commissioner, redacted not public data from this opinion. The redaction was necessary to bring the data in the opinion into compliance with amendments the Legislature made to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.072, the advisory opinion enabling legislation

Facts and Procedural History:

For purposes of simplification, the information presented by the government entity that requested this opinion is presented in summary form. Copies of the complete submission 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 4, 1996, PIPA received a letter from Paul C. Ratwik, attorney for Independent School District Number 876, Annandale Public Schools, in which he requested this advisory opinion. Mr. Ratwik's request was held until the $200.00 fee required pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.072, was received by PIPA on April 9, 1996. A summary of the detailed facts of the matter at issue follows.

According to Mr. Ratwik, in March 1996, the Annandale School Board adopted a resolution which settled a lawsuit brought against the District on behalf of a minor student. The lawsuit involved allegations that the District discriminated against the disabled student, and did not fulfill its obligations to the student under state and federal laws. The terms of the settlement were not disclosed in the resolution adopted by the Board.

Subsequently, the District received a request from a local newspaper reporter for access to the

. . . settlement amount of the out-of-court-settlement the School District came to with [the student and the student's parent] . . . . ; and . . . information on why the Board decided to offer the settlement.

Issue:

In his request for an opinion, Mr. Ratwik asked the Commissioner to address the following issues:

Are the terms of an agreement between the parent of a student and a school district settling a dispute and lawsuit arising out of that student's special educational program considered educational data, as that term is defined by
Minnesota Statutes Section 13.32, subdivision 1, by reason of being data on individuals maintained by a public educational agency or institution or by a person acting for the agency or institution which relates to a student? The terms of this settlement agreement include information relative to the student's individual educational program in the School District.
Do the provisions of the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, and Minnesota Statutes Section 13.32 in particular, provide a basis for treating the monetary component of a settlement of a lawsuit arising out of the education of a disabled student in a manner different from any other element of educational data maintained by the School District?

Discussion:

Minnesota Statutes Section 13.32, subdivision 1 (a), defines educational data as data on individuals maintained by a public educational agency or institution or by a person acting for the agency or institution which relates to a student. Subdivision 2 (b), provides that data concerning parents are educational data. Subdivision 3 provides that educational data are private data on individuals. ( Directory information is an exception, which is not relevant here. See Section 13.32, subdivision 5.)

Section 13.02, subdivision 5, defines data on individuals as all government data in which any individual is or can be identifiedas 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. (Emphasis added.)

The simple answer to both of the issues raised by Mr. Ratwik depends, therefore, on whether the data in question are data which identify, or could identify, the student or the student's parent. Data which identify, or could identify the student and/or the student's parent are private educational data, and are not accessible to a member of the public, absent the student's/parent's consent. Clearly, much of the data in an agreement settling a lawsuit between a District and a student will be data about the student. However, in general, the amount of a monetary payment in a settlement, in and of itself, unless it is associated with data that identify who received the settlement, does not constitute data which identify, or could identify, an individual student.

The discussion of this issue is complicated by the facts as presented by Mr. Ratwik. The reporter, in his request for access to the data, identified the student and the student's parent. The Commissioner discussed a similar situation in Advisory Opinion Number 95-005:

The answer to the issue raised by Mr. Anfinson revolves around a simple, yet critical and pivotal question: did the Herald reporter request data on individuals or data not on individuals?

In his opinion request letter, Mr. Anfinson describes a fact scenario in which the Herald reporter requested certain data allegedly maintained by Chaska. Mr. Anfinson states, ...The newspaper is not seeking the identity of, or any information that could serve to identify, the student.... . . . .

However, based on the information provided by Ms. Wallner, the reporter asked specifically for data about the [X] incident, i.e. data about a specific, identifiable student. Rather than asking merely for data about an alleged incident, the reporter asked for data about a student. For that reason, any dissemination of such data by Chaska would be in violation of Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13.

The key is that the reporter requested data on an individual. . . . .

On the flip side, as Mr. Anfinson's request states, had the reporter requested data relating to any claims filed against Chaska which did not identify the student involved, such data would clearly be data not on individuals. Data not on individuals is defined in Minnesota Statutes Section 13.02, subdivision 4, as all government data which is not on individuals. Such data maintained by public educational institutions do not appear to be classified in Chapter 13 as not public. Therefore, based on the presumption established by Chapter 13 that government data are public unless a federal law, state statute, or temporary classification of data provides otherwise, it appears that most data not on individuals maintained by Chaska would be classified as public data.

Had the Herald reporter requested data not on individuals about the alleged claim, it appears those data would be public. However, as soon as the reporter identified the student, he was clearly requesting data on individuals. Except for certain exceptions which are not applicable in this situation, data on students are private data on individuals, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 13.32. Chaska is obligated to protect private data from public disclosure. (See Minnesota Statutes Sections 13.02, subdivision 12, and 13.05, subdivision 3.).

The reporter named the student when he requested access to the settlement amount. Therefore, the District could not disseminate any data about the settlement amount to the reporter without disseminating data about a particular student. That dissemination would have been a dissemination of private educational data which is not permitted under Section 13.32. Therefore, in the instance which prompted the District to request this opinion, i.e., the request from the reporter for information on the settlement the District reached with a particular student and parent, the District properly denied access to the data requested by the news reporter, because the data are private educational data under Section 13.32.

However, the District is obligated, in general, to provide public access to the public data not on individuals which it maintains. Data which are strictly about dollar amounts of settlements between students and districts are probably public data.

(Settlement agreements involving students and school districts are treated differently under statute than those involving public employees. The Legislature has made the latter explicitly public under Minnesota Statutes Section 13.43, subdivision 2(a)(6).)

Opinion:

Based on the correspondence in this matter, my opinion on the issues raised by Mr. Ratwik is as follows:

The terms of an agreement between the parent of a student and a school district settling a dispute and lawsuit, are private educational data, as that term is defined by Minnesota Statutes Section 13.32, subdivision 1, to the extent the data involved identify, or could identify, the student and/or the parent.
The provisions of the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, and Minnesota Statutes Section 13.32 in particular, do not provide a basis for treating data about the amount of a monetary settlement in a manner different from any other element of educational data maintained by the School District. That is, to the extent that the monetary component of the settlement constitutes data from which a student or parent is, or could be, identified, data about the monetary amount are private data on individuals, pursuant to Section 13.32. If, however, the identity of a student or parent cannot be determined from the data about the monetary amount of a settlement, those data are public data not on individuals.

Signed:

Elaine S. Hansen
Commissioner

Dated: April 29, 1996

Educational data

Definition (13.02, subd. 5)

Settlement agreements