To return to this list after selecting an opinion, click on the "View entire list" link above the opinion title.
January 12, 2001; Minnesota Department of Public Safety
1/12/2001 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 IPA and, except for any data classified as not public, are available for public access. On October 24, 2000, IPA received a letter dated October 20, 2000, from Julie Kramer, WCCO-TV. In her letter, Ms. Kramer requested that the Commissioner issue an opinion regarding WCCO's access to certain data that the Minnesota Department of Public Safety (DPS) maintains. IPA, on behalf of the Commissioner, wrote to Charles Weaver, Commissioner of the Department, in response to Ms. Kramer's request. The purposes of this letter, dated October 26, 2000, were to inform him of Ms. Kramer's request and to ask him to provide information or support for the Department's position. On November 6, 2000, IPA received a response, dated November 2, 2000, from Commissioner Weaver. A summary of the facts according to Ms. Kramer is as follows. She wrote, On October 16, I requested copies of weekly timesheets for several Minnesota Public Safety employees. Ms. Kramer stated that DPS denied her request, citing Minnesota Statutes, section 13.37, security information. She wrote, [DPS staff] said, because these employees provide protection for the governor, their timesheets are considered security information.' Ms. Kramer argued that much of the information DPS refuses to provide has already been published in the media, e.g., number of people assigned to executive protection, and the hours the Governor is protected. Issue:In her request for an opinion, Ms. Kramer asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:
Discussion:Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43, classifies data about employees. Subdivision 2 (8) of section 13.43 provides that the following personnel data are public: payroll timesheets or other comparable data that are only used to account for employee's work time for payroll purposes. In his comments, Commissioner Weaver wrote: ...The release of timesheets for the officers protecting the Governor would endanger the Governor's safety by detailing the days of the week, times of day and number of officers protecting the governor at any given time. Information on the security staffing patterns for the governor would enable those intending to harm the governor to determined [sic] when he is most vulnerable....the timesheets were determined to be nonpublic, security information under Minn. Stat. 13.37 Subd.2. Section 13.37, subdivision 2, classifies security information as not public. Security information is defined as government data the disclosure of which would be likely to substantially jeopardize the security of information, possessions, individuals or property against theft, tampering, improper use, attempted escape, illegal disclosure, trespass, or physical injury. The Legislature did not define substantially jeopardize. In an attempt to clarify this term and the applicable language in section 13.37, the Commissioner reviewed various statutes, laws, and case law but was unable to locate anything specifically applicable to the situation at hand. Because the Commissioner is not comfortable with the broad discretion seemingly available to government entities in using the security data provision to deny access to data, he intends to present this issue to the 2001 Legislature, in hopes that they will clarify the language. This is a particularly prudent time for the Commissioner to seek legislative guidance because, in addition to the issues raised in this opinion, he is aware of several recent instances in which government entities have used the security data provision as a basis upon which to deny access to data. However, the issue raised by Ms. Kramer remains. The Commissioner of Public Safety is charged by law with the responsibility of providing the Governor's security detail, and for protecting the Governor's person. The Commissioner of Public Safety and his staff have the training, experience, and expertise to determine security risk in this regard, and how this security function is to be best performed. See Cable Communications Board v. Nor-West Cable Communications Partnership, 356 N.W.2nd 658, 668 (Minn. 1984); In re the Petition to Adopt S.T. and N.T., 497 N.W.2d 625, 628 (Minn. App. 1993). Under the circumstances of this case, there is not sufficient showing that the Commissioner of Public Safety is acting arbitrarily or beyond the scope of his responsibility in determining that release of the specific data in question presents a security risk to the person of the Governor. This office is not in a position to overrule this determination. As stated above, we recognize a need for legislative clarification regarding the security information provision. Opinion:Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue that Ms. Kramer raised is as follows:
Signed:
Kirsten Cecil
Dated: January 12, 2001
|
Personnel data
Security information
Time sheets or payroll
Entity's discretion to withhold
