To return to this list after selecting an opinion, click on the "View entire list" link above the opinion title.
July 30, 2001; School District 2169 (Murray County Central)
7/30/2001 10:15:43 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 HistoryFor 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 June 11, 2001, IPA received a letter from X. In this letter, X asked the Commissioner to issue an advisory opinion regarding his/her rights regarding certain data maintained by Independent School District 2169, Murray County Central Schools. In response to X's request, IPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Cornelius H. Smit, Superintendent of the District. The purposes of this letter, dated June 13, 2001, were to inform him of X's request and to ask him to provide information or support for the District's position. On July 6, 2001, IPA received a response from Jay T. Squires, attorney for the District. A summary of the facts of this matter follows. The Murray County Central School Board held a special session on July 31, 2000. According to X, at that meeting the School Board released data about him/her to the public. On August 7, 2000, the Murray County Wheel/Herald newspaper published an article that contained the following: A Level III Grievance Hearing will be scheduled. [X] and the MCC Education Assn' have requested the hearing. [X's] grievance is based on a letter in which Principal Mark Bergmann threatened termination of [his/her] contract because of actions on [X's] part. The hearing needs to be held within 20 days. Those actions were not defined in the notice received by Superintendent Smit. X wrote: [a]t the time of the article, I was involved within the grievance procedure through our education association over a letter of discipline which had been placed in my personnel file. Mr. Squires provided the Commissioner with a copy of a letter from X and his/her union representative to Superintendent Smit. Mr. Squires wrote: [X] asked whether the District appropriately released personnel data by including in the School Board packet a copy of [his/her] letter requesting [his/her] grievance be moved to Level III under the local bargaining agreement. The grievance involved a challenge to the accuracy of the data in a letter issued by the District to [X.] Mr. Squires stated that the contents of that letter are public because they are either data that identify the existence or status of a complaint or charge against X, per section 13.43, subdivision 2 (a) (4), or are X's statement of disagreement regarding the accuracy of data maintained by the District, as provided under section 13.04, subdivision 4. Issue:In his/her request for an opinion, X asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
Discussion:Data about public employees are classified at Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43. Specifically, certain data related to and stemming from complaints and/or charges made about employees are classified as public: the existence and status of any complaints or charges against the employee, regardless of whether the complaint or charge resulted in a disciplinary action; (see subdivision 2(a)(4)) and the final disposition of any disciplinary action together with the specific reasons for the action and data documenting the basis of the action, excluding data that would identify confidential sources who are employees of the public body; (see subdivision 2(a)(5). Final disposition is defined at subdivision 2(b), and in this context, occurs at the conclusion of the arbitration proceedings. The substantive content in the letter from X to the District, which the District made available to the public, is as follows: Per the Collective Bargaining Agreement between the MCCEA and Independent School District No. 2169, we have decided to move the grievance of [X] to Level III. We will wait for your reply as to a hearing with the School Board as per the CBA. In response to your statement, the letter itself does not constitute discipline' under the CBA , it is very hard to interpret Mr. Bergmann's concerns any other way when he refers to MN Statute 122A.40 three times as to possible termination of [X's] teaching position if such actions continue. It is hoped that an agreement between the two parties will be forthcoming in a timely manner. Mr. Squires characterized the contents of X's letter to the District as 1) constituting the existence and status of charges involving X, and 2) as X's challenge to the accuracy of data maintained about him/her by the District and X's statement of disagreement regarding those data. With respect to the first point, Mr. Squires stated: [i]n particular, the letter at issue contains no data regarding the nature of the charges, and thus still falls within the definition of existence and status as that term is used in state law. The Commissioner respectfully disagrees. The letter X sent to Superintendent Smit serves to clarify the issues between them, and while the fact that s/he is grieving the complaint or charge against him/her is public, the other details contained in the letter are not. For example, X refers to a letter from his/her principal that states that if X continues certain actions, his/her employment could be terminated. With respect to the second point, Mr. Squires stated the letter included in the School Board packet contained the letter advising the Board of the employee's challenge to the accuracy of data. . . . . Paragraph two of the letter challenges the characterization of the letter on which the grievance was based, and thus constitutes the employee's own statement of disagreement' with the data's accuracy. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.04, subdivision 4, an individual has the right to challenge the accuracy and/or completeness of data about him/her that a government entity maintains: To exercise this right, an individual shall notify in writing the responsible authority describing the nature of the disagreement. The responsible authority shall within 30 days either: (1) correct the data found to be inaccurate or incomplete and attempt to notify past recipients of inaccurate or incomplete data, including recipients named by the individual; or (2) notify the individual that the authority believes the data to be correct. Data in dispute shall be disclosed only if the individual's statement of disagreement is included with the disclosed data. In order for a data subject to exercise his/her right to challenge data per section 13.04, subdivision 4, the data subject must follow the procedures outlined in statute and Minnesota Rules, Chapter 1205. Mr. Squires did not provide any data that demonstrate that X has formally challenged the data in question. The letter from X to Superintendent Smit does not mention a data challenge under section 13.04. Accordingly, the letter does not constitute a statement of disagreement that must be disclosed. Opinion:Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue raised by X is as follows:
Signed:
David F. Fisher
Dated: July 30, 2001 |
Data subjects
Personnel data
Statement of disagreement
Status
