To return to this list after selecting an opinion, click on the "View entire list" link above the opinion title.
July 18, 1997; Blue Earth County
7/18/1997 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 7, 1997, PIPA received a letter dated May 5, 1997, from Ann Goering, at attorney representing Blue Earth County. In her letter, Ms. Goering requested that the Commissioner issue an opinion regarding the classification of certain data maintained by the County. A summary of the facts surrounding this matter is as follows. A County employee complained about the working atmosphere in the Department in which s/he is employed. This Department is co-located with a Department of the City of Mankato. In investigating the complaint, the County interviewed both County and City employees. During the interviews, the original complainant ( County Employee ) and some City employees all described specific conduct on the part of a City Employee ( City Employee A ). As the County has no authority over City employees, no disciplinary action could be taken by the County. However, the County Administrator wrote to the City Manager, describing the working atmosphere in the Departments and the conduct of City Employee A. City Employee A and the Mankato Free Press have requested copies of the County's investigative report regarding the County Employee's complaint. Ms. Goering provided PIPA with a copy of the documentation related to the investigation in question. The documents provided included the following: 1) a copy of a report prepared by the County's Director of Human Resources (most of the data in the report were related to the Director's interview with the County Employee); 2) a copy of an e-mail message, described as a report prepared by the County's Director of Human Resources (most of the data in the e-mail were related to the Director's interview with a city employee; and 3) a copy of a letter dated March 21, 1997, from the County's Administrator to the City's Manager regarding the hostile working environment. As part of a follow-up letter, Ms. Goering provided a copy of a letter dated March 28, 1997, from the City Manager to the County Administrator in which the City Manager asked to review the specific detail of the report issued by [the Human Resources Director] regarding [his/her] investigation of the [joint County/City Department] work environment...In order for the City to determine if specific disciplinary action or further measures to counsel an employee is in order, it will be critical to review the extent of [the Human Resources Director's] investigation and the statements of the employees that were interviewed during the course of the investigation. Issues:
In her request for an opinion, Ms. Goering asked the Commissioner to address the following issues:
Discussion:
Before proceeding, it is noted that while the issue statements refer to data in a report (singular), it is Ms. Goering's intention that the Commissioner address the classification of the data in each of the four documents (two reports created by the Human Resources Director, one letter from the County Administrator to City staff, and one letter to the County Administrator from City staff) cited in Facts and Procedures.
Ms. Goering's first question is whether the data in the four documents are public. Per Minnesota Statutes Section 13.03, subdivision 1, all government data are public unless classified otherwise. An examination of the documents reveals that some of the data, especially data in the two reports, are data on individuals about County and/or City employees. In fact, some of the documents contain data about more than one employee. The data about City and County employees contained in the documents were collected, created, and are maintained by Blue Earth County because those individuals are or were employees of a government entity (in this case, either the City or the County). Therefore, those data in the possession of the County are classified pursuant to Section 13.43, personnel data. Subdivision 2 of Section 13.43 classifies specific types of personnel data as public and subdivision 4 classifies all remaining personnel data as private. Thus, as specified by Section 13.43, data in the documents of which County and/or City employees are the subject, are either private or public, depending upon the type of data contained in the documents. Private data in the documents are accessible to the subject(s) of private data but are not accessible to the public. Ms. Goering's second question is whether the data in the documents are private data about the County Employee (the original complainant). Upon examination of the documents, the Commissioner is reasonably certain that the February 28, 1997, report contains data about the County Employee and it appears that the March 21, 1997, letter to the Mankato City Manager may contain data about the County Employee, as well. Because the data about the County Employee in the February 28, 1997, letter are not the type of data classified as public per Section 13.43, subdivision 2, those data are private pursuant to subdivision 4 of Section 13.43. Making a determination about the March 21, 1997, however, is problematic. Without more information about the context in which the letter was created, the Commissioner is unable to determine whether the data in the letter are private. The third question is whether City Employee A has a greater right than the general public to gain access to private data in the documents about the County Employee. Generally speaking, the only persons who would be able to gain access to private data about the County Employee are the County Employee him/herself, those persons within the County whose work assignments reasonably require access (see Minnesota Rules Section 1205.0400, subpart 2), and other agencies authorized to gain access by state or federal law. However, there are a couple of situations in which the data about the County Employee would become available to City Employee A: 1) pursuant to Section 13.43, subdivision 8, if the allegations against City Employee A are related to sexual or another type of harassment, and if a disciplinary proceeding is initiated, data on the complainant or witness shall be available to the employee as may be necessary for the employee to prepare for the proceeding; and 2) if City Employee A is disciplined, the information about the complainant (the County Employee) may, at some point, be available to City Employee A as part of constitutional due process protections. Therefore, if City Employee A is the subject of some of the private data, s/he can gain access to those data so long as releasing the data does not result in a dissemination of private data about another City or County Employee. However, there may be situations in which release of data to City Employee A about other data subjects is authorized. Ms. Goering's fourth question regards the classification of data about City Employee A that were collected and are maintained by the County. As discussed above, any data about an individual collected by a government entity because that individual is or was an employee of a government entity, are classified per Section 13.43. In this case, the data about City Employee A were collected by the County because City Employee A is an employee of the City of Mankato, who, because of the operation of a joint County/City Department, works with County employees. Therefore, the data about City Employee A in the possession of Blue Earth County are classified per Section 13.43. Ms. Goering's fifth question is whether the County may redact the identities of the County complainant and/or the City employees who were interviewed. As the Commissioner has already stated, it appears some of the documents contain data about more than one individual. If one of the employees (County or City) who is the subject of data in the documents, requests access to data about him/herself, the County is obligated to redact data that would result in sharing identification or other data about other data subjects. If, however, the County is unable to redact data such that other data subjects cannot be identified, the County may not have the authority to release data to any of the data subjects. (See Advisory Opinion 96-002 for more information.) Opinion:Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issues raised by Ms. Goering is as follows:
Signed: Julie Smith Zuidema for Elaine S. Hansen
Dated: July 18, 1997 |
Personnel data
Work assignment requires access
