To return to this list after selecting an opinion, click on the "View entire list" link above the opinion title.
August 6, 1997; Public Employees Retirement Association
8/6/1997 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 May 8, 1997, PIPA received a letter dated May 5, 1997, from an individual, hereinafter C. In the letter, C requested that the Commissioner issue an opinion regarding her/his rights as a data subject in relation to data maintained by the Public Employees Retirement Association (PERA). After discussion with PIPA staff, one issue was agreed upon. PIPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Mary Most Vanek, Executive Director of PERA, in response to C's request. The purposes of this letter, dated June 16, 1997, were to inform her of C's request and to ask her to provide information or support for PERA's position. On June 27, 1997, PIPA received a response, dated June 20, 1997, from Jon Murphy, Assistant Minnesota Attorney General. A summary of the facts is as follows. C filed a disability claim which was the subject of an administrative hearing before an administrative law judge of the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) (see Minnesota Statutes Chapter 14). The report from the hearing was then compiled as a part of PERA's administrative hearing and appeal process pursuant to state law. The report was presented to and considered by the PERA Board of Trustees at a regularly scheduled board meeting and was adopted as the basis upon which C was found to be eligible for disability benefits. C is specifically concerned about the classification of the medical data contained in the report. Issue:
In her/his request for an opinion, C asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
Discussion:
Generally speaking, data maintained by PERA, such as the data about C in the OAH report, are classified pursuant to Minnesota Statues Sections 13.43 and 13.691. Based strictly on the language in Section 13.43, subdivision 2a, it appears that except for C's name, gross pension, and type of benefit awarded, all the remaining data in the OAH report would be not public. The problem, however, is that PERA maintains two copies of the report and one of the copies is apparently part of the record of the Board's final proceeding and decision.
To explain, Mr. Murphy wrote that PERA is subject to the Open Meeting Law, Minnesota Statutes Section 471.705. He wrote:
As Mr. Murphy discussed, Section 471.705 does provide that when a body subject to the Open Meeting Law discusses certain types of data, e.g., educational, health, medical, or welfare data subject to the requirements of Chapter 13, the meeting must be closed. If, however, there is no legal authority to close the meeting and it is open, a record of the meeting must be public. (See Section 471.705, subd.1d (a).) In the present situation, C was a party in a case that was heard by an administrative law judge. As part of the administrative hearing process, medical data about C were discussed and some, possibly all, of those data were included in the report issued by the administrative law judge. PERA then received and is maintaining a copy of the report from OAH. Pursuant to Section 13.43, subdivision 2a, there are only three types of data about its members that PERA is required to disclose: name; gross pension; and type of benefit awarded. Therefore, any medical data about C in the report are not public. The issue, however, is complicated by the fact that the PERA Board, which is subject to the Open Meeting Law, apparently discussed the report while considering C's claim. The complication comes about because the Open Meeting Law may require that the data be treated as public. Section 471.705, subdivision 1d, provides that a public body must close a meeting when discussing medical data described in Section 13.42, i.e., data collected because C is or was a patient of a hospital, etc., operated by a government entity. As previously stated, some of the data contained in the report are medical data about C. However, it is not clear from the record, nor has C established, that the medical data submitted by C which traveled from OAH to PERA, are the type of medical data described in Section 13.42. If one assumes that the data about C were not collected because s/he is/was a patient of a public hospital, etc., the meeting at which the PERA Board discussed the OAH report was required to be open to the public. Accordingly, as per Section 471.705, subdivision 1d, a record of the meeting, regardless of form, shall be public. If a copy of the OAH report is part of the record of the meeting, that particular report and all the data it contains are public. Any other copies of the OAH report maintained by PERA are classified pursuant to Section 13.43, subdivision 2a. Opinion:Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue raised by C is as follows:
Signed: Elaine S. Hansen
Dated: August 6, 1997 |
Open Meeting Law
Closed meetings
Office of administrative hearings OAH
Open Meeting Law
Closed meetings
Record of meeting
Public Employees Retirement Association (PERA)
