Primary navigation

    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 01-025

    February 7, 2001; Minnesota Department of Children, Families, and Learning

    2/7/2001 10:17:43 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 IPA and, except for any data classified as not public, are available for public access.

    On October 12, 2000, IPA received a letter from X. In this letter, X asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding his/her right to gain access to certain data about X's child, Y, maintained by the Minnesota Department of Children, Families Learning (CFL.) X's request required additional information and clarification with IPA staff, which was provided in a letter IPA received on December 15, 2000. Subsequent to X's initial requests to CFL, Y achieved the age of majority. Accordingly, IPA clarified that Y was a party to this opinion request.

    In response to X and Y's request, IPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Christine Jax, Commissioner of CFL. The purposes of this letter, dated January 2, 2001, were to inform her of X and Y's request and to ask her to provide information or support for CFL's position. On January 24, 2001, IPA received a response from Jessie R. Montantilde;o, Assistant Commissioner of CFL. A summary of the facts of this matter follows.

    Y was an applicant for a Robert C. Byrd Honors Scholarship. In correspondence beginning in May, 2000, and extending into September, 2000, X asked CFL to provide certain data related to Y's scholarship application. CFL did not provide all of the data X requested. X and CFL exchanged correspondence as X requested additional data about Y, and sought clarification of CFL's reasons for withholding some of the data requested. The specific data X requested, and CFL's responses, are detailed below.

    Issues:

    In their request for an opinion, X and Y asked the Commissioner to address the following issues:

    1. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did the Minnesota Department of Children, Families and Learning respond appropriately to two requests for access to scholarship application scoring data, dated May 30, 2000, and June 5, 2000, by redacting the names of the reviewers from the score sheets?
    2. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did the Minnesota Department of Children, Families and Learning respond appropriately to an August 21, 2000, request for access to cutoff scores specific to geographical regions into which Byrd program awards are divided?
    3. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did the Minnesota Department of Children, Families and Learning respond appropriately to an August 21, 2000, request for access to review scoring sheets of scholarship applicants, paired by individual applicant?

    Discussion:

    Issue 1

    Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did the Minnesota Department of Children, Families and Learning respond appropriately to two requests for access to scholarship application scoring data, dated May 30, 2000, and June 5, 2000, by redacting the names of the reviewers from the score sheets?

    X asked CFL to provide copies of the scoring sheets with reviewers' names included. CFL had provided the sheets with the names of the reviewers redacted.

    In her response to the Commissioner, Ms. Montantilde;o stated that the reviewers are employees of the State of Minnesota, and that there is no authority under section 13.43, subd. 2 to identify an individual's work product.

    Data about current and former public employees are termed personnel data and are classified at section 13.43. Public personnel data are listed in subdivision 2; under subdivision 4, all other personnel data are private.

    The Commissioner has reviewed the scoring sheets provided to X about Y, and concludes that, with the exception of the reviewers' names (which were redacted), the data contained therein are data about Y, not the reviewers. Under section 13.43, subdivision 2, public employees' names are public. Ms. Montantilde;o is correct that work product is not included in the public personnel data enumerated in section 13.43, subdivision 2. However, the reviewers are not the subjects of the balance of the data contained in the scoring sheets, and, therefore, the scoring sheets contain no other personnel data. Thus, it is reasonable to conclude that the subject of all of the data contained in the scoring sheets, other than the reviewers' names, is the scholarship applicant, not the reviewer. Accordingly, CFL erred in redacting public data, i.e., the reviewers' names, from the scoring sheets provided to X and Y. (See also Advisory Opinion 00-065.)

    Issue 2

    Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did the Minnesota Department of Children, Families and Learning respond appropriately to an August 21, 2000, request for access to cutoff scores specific to geographical regions into which Byrd program awards are divided?

    In her response to the Commissioner, Ms. Montantilde;o stated: . . . upon further reconsideration, so long as the files, evaluation sheets or names of students are not organized in a manner in which it would be possible to ascertain which student got the lowest score, we will release this information to X' and Y'. Therefore, we will be advising X' and Y' that we will release the lowest score of each geographical region.

    Issue 3

    Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did the Minnesota Department of Children, Families and Learning respond appropriately to an August 21, 2000, request for access to review scoring sheets of scholarship applicants, paired by individual applicant?

    In a letter dated August 21, 2000, X wrote to CFL: [t]he review sheets cannot be paired by applicant and accordingly cannot be evaluated for consistency between applicants. It is suggested that the review sheets be paired by stapling them together, as the two copies of the review sheets provided of [Y's] application were. The number of applicants is such that there is no individually identifiable information contained in the response format suggested.

    In their opinion request, X and Y characterized the data in question with a hypothetical, as follows:

    A state agency operates a scholarship program. Each potential recipient submits an application to the agency for evaluation. Each application is reviewed by two evaluators, each submitting a single scoring sheet. Each application's conglomerate score is calculated using the two individual subscores assigned. Accordingly, if there are five hundred applications submitted, there will be five hundred evaluations, each consisting of two single page scoring sheets paired together. A constituent is interested in evaluating the consistency and relationship between assigned scores and their individual subscores. For example, a score of 185 could represent subscores of 100 and 85, subscores of 120 and 65, etc. The constituent's request for scoring sheets is responded to with one thousand pages in no particular order. It is impossible to compare scoring patterns unless the sheets are provided in a manner in which they are paired as originally scored.

    In her response to the Commissioner, Ms. Montantilde;o stated that in a letter dated June 17, 2000, X requested copies of the scoring sheets of all the applicants for the Robert C. Byrd Honors Scholarship program with the individually identifiable information deleted.' CFL provided copies of all of the scoring sheets, with the names of the students and reviewers redacted. X then made the August 21, 2000, request noted above. Ms. Montantilde;o wrote: [t]here is no requirement under the Data Practices Act that public data itself be organized in such a fashion as requested by the applicant.

    Ms. Montantilde;o is correct, CFL is not obligated under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, to organize data to suit a particular requestor. However, here, X and Y simply asked for the data to be provided to them in the same manner as it is maintained by CFL. The total score for each applicant, which determines who is selected, is ascertained by adding the two scores from each pair of scoring sheets. CFL could not make the determinations it must, i.e., to whom to award the scholarships, if it did not maintain the scoring sheets paired by applicant. It would not be possible for anyone to glean any meaningful information from the scoring sheets in the manner in which CFL provided them to X and Y. Accordingly, CFL should provide X and Y access to the paired scoring sheets.

    Opinion:

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

    1. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, the Minnesota Department of Children, Families and Learning did not respond appropriately to two requests for access to scholarship application scoring data, dated May 30, 2000, and June 5, 2000, by redacting the names of the reviewers, which are public, from the score sheets.
    2. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, the Minnesota Department of Children, Families and Learning did not respond appropriately to an August 21, 2000, request by denying access to cutoff scores specific to geographical regions into which Byrd program awards are divided.
    3. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, the Minnesota Department of Children, Families and Learning did not respond appropriately to an August 21, 2000, request by refusing to provide access to review scoring sheets of scholarship applicants, paired by individual applicant.
     

    Signed:

    David F. Fisher
    Commissioner

    Dated: February 7, 2001

    Educational data

    Multiple data subjects

    Personnel data

    Redaction

    Personnel data included (See also: Personnel data - educational data)

    Summary data

    Multiple data subjects

    Multiple data subjects

    Redaction (See also: Multiple data subjects; Separation of data)

    back to top