This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued under Minnesota Statutes, section 13.072 (2025). It is based on the facts and information available to the Commissioner as described below.

Facts and Procedural History:

Ryan Raiche, a reporter for KSTP-TV, requested an opinion regarding the Metropolitan Council’s (Met Council) response to requests for government data made under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13 (Data Practices Act). Met Council provided comments in response to the advisory opinion request.

KSTP-TV provided the following summary of facts:

In September 2024, the Met Council announced that [the Police Chief] was no longer with the department. At the time, KSTP-TV requested all data, including any prepared reports, relating to that investigation. The Met Council denied our request because under state law – at the time – the Metro Transit Police Chief was not considered a “public official.”

That all changed this last legislative session after our reporting on the matter. Lawmakers added the Metro Transit Police Chief to the list of “public officials.” The Met Council even lobbied for this change.

Once the law took effect in August 2025, KSTP-TV made the request again:

“In light of new legislation which changes the classification of certain data on the police chief at Metro Transit, KSTP-TV is requesting again all data, including any prepared reports, relating to the investigation into former Metro Transit Police Chief Earnest Morales.”

Despite lobbying for the change in the law, the Met Council denied the request again, saying the new law does not apply retroactively. KSTP-TV appealed that decision based on 13.03 subdivision 9. A Met Council lawyer responded with the attached letter – denying me again.

Issue:

Discussion:

Government data are public unless otherwise classified. (Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 1.) Personnel data are classified by Minnesota Statutes, section 13.43. Personnel data means “government data on individuals maintained because the individual is or was an employee of… a government entity.” Subdivision 2 lists the types of personnel data that are public and subdivision 4 classifies most other personnel data as private.

Generally, only the existence and status of a complaint or charge against an employee are public data, unless or until there is a final disposition of disciplinary action. (Section 13.43, subd. 2(a)(4) and (5).) For employees who are “public officials,” however, data relating to a complaint or charge are public if certain conditions are met. (Section 13.43, subd. 2(e) and (f).)

In 2025, the Minnesota Legislature amended section 13.43, subdivision 2(e)(5), by adding certain individuals employed by Met Council to the definition of "public official," including the chief law enforcement officer of the Metro Transit Police Department.  Paragraph (f) of the same subdivision states:

Data relating to a complaint or charge against an employee identified under paragraph (e), clause (5), are public only if:

(1) the complaint or charge results in disciplinary action or the employee resigns or is terminated from employment while the complaint or charge is pending, or

(2) potential legal claims arising out of the conduct that is the subject of the complaint or charge are released as part of a settlement agreement.

Additionally, Minnesota Statutes, section 13.03, subdivision 9 states, “unless otherwise expressly provided by a particular statute, the classification of data is determined by the law applicable to the data at the time a request for access to the data is made, regardless of the data’s classification at the time it was collected, created, or received.” Meanwhile, Minnesota Statutes, section 645.21 states, “no law shall be construed to be retroactive unless clearly and manifestly so intended by the Legislature.”

In Advisory Opinion 95-039, a University of Minnesota faculty member signed an agreement in 1991, as a result of a complaint from a student. In 1993, the Legislature amended section 13.43, subdivision 2, changing the public classification of settlement agreements from those relating to “administrative or judicial proceedings” to the current language – “any dispute arising out of the employment relationship.” The faculty member asserted, though the University could not confirm, that he had been promised confidentiality when signing the agreement. The Commissioner wrote, “Although this kind of agreement may have been private at the time it was entered into, the Legislature, in its 1991 enactment of Section 13.03, subdivision 9, provided” that the classification is determined by the statute existing at the time of the request. Therefore, the settlement agreement was public.

In Advisory Opinion 96-011, a data subject had been a patient at a state hospital at various times in the 1960s. Subsequently, the Legislature classified certain directory information about public hospital patients as public. The data subject objected to the release of that data. The Commissioner concluded:

K objects to DHS treating any of the data on the index card as directory information. One basis for K’s objection is that because the data were collected/created prior to August 1, 1975, and the data were treated as not public pursuant to Section 246.13, the data cannot ever be public data. K’s reasoning is understandable. K believed the assurances made at the time of K’s release from involuntary commitment, that the data were private and confidential.

However, the Legislature, on an annual basis, enacts new legislation, and amends and repeals existing statutes. Annually, the Legislature alters the classification of various types of government data. As evidence of its intent, to maintain ongoing control over classification of data, the Legislature enacted Section 13.03, subdivision 9.

In comments to the Commissioner, Met Council wrote:

At no point in time, however, was [the former Chief] a public official under Minnesota Statutes section 13.43, subd. 2(e). The statutory language only applies to the person in the role of the Chief of Police after the effective date [of the 2025 legislative change]. Prior to the effective date, the Chief of Police was not a public official. As an employee who was not a public official, the only public data related to a complaint or charge is the existence and status of the complaint, i.e., there was a complaint, and the investigation is closed. The Council is not permitted to provide further data under state law.

...

Minnesota Statutes 13.03, subdivision 9 also does not apply in this situation and it is not a clear and manifest intent of the Legislature for retroactively applying the 2025 amendment. First, subdivision 9 addresses changes in the classification of data. But here, the classification of data has not changed: Data about public officials was and remains classified as public. Instead, the amendment changes the definition of who is a public official. While that has the effect of changing the classification of data for someone who currently or in the future serves in one of those roles, it does not apply to someone who is not in that role (see plain language analysis above). Subdivision 9 does not apply. Second, the Legislature added section 13.03, subdivision 9 in 1990. The public official exception was not added until five years later and then only applied to “the head of a state agency and deputy and assistant state agency heads.”1995 Minn. Laws Ch. 259 (S.F. 1279). A 1990 amendment is not clear and manifest intent of retroactivity for a 2025 amendment particularly where so many changes to the statutory section have occurred between the two enactments.

The Commissioner respectfully disagrees. The Legislature’s clear and manifest intention regarding determining data classification is stated in section 13.03, subd. 9; unless otherwise expressly provided, classification is determined by the language of the law existing at the time of the request, “regardless of the data’s classification at the time it was collected, created, or received.” If the Commissioner were to accept Met Council’s argument regarding retroactivity, section 13.03, subd. 9 would be rendered meaningless. An entity would be obligated to research the legislative history of a provision each time it needed to determine the classification of responsive data, instead of relying on the plain language of the statute. This is exactly the problem section 13.03, subd. 9 seeks to remedy.

Because section 13.43 does not expressly state otherwise, the relevant inquiry to determine the classification of the data at issue is:

Does Met Council maintain “data relating to a complaint or charge against an employee identified under [subdivision 2] paragraph (e), clause (5)”?

Did that employee resign while the complaint or charge was pending?

At the time KSTP-TV made the August 2025 request, section 13.43, subdivision 2(e)(5) identified the chief law enforcement officer of the Metro Transit Police as a “public official.” There was a complaint or charge against him, and he resigned while the complaint or charge was pending. Because the classification of data are determined at the time of the request, Met Council did not respond appropriately to KSTP-TV’s data request by denying access to all of the requested data.

As a final note, in its comments, Met Council raised important issues related to due process and employee decision-making during the complaint process. The Commissioner has commented on those concerns in the prior opinions cited above. In making the recent changes to section 13.43, the Legislature did not discuss how changes in determining classification would impact public officials who resigned prior to the change. The Commissioner encourages entities that share these concerns to raise them for the Legislature’s consideration.

Opinion:

Based on the facts and information provided, the Commissioner’s opinion on the issue is as follows:

The Metropolitan Council did not respond appropriately to a request submitted on August 5, 2025, for data related to a personnel investigation involving the former Metro Transit Police Chief by denying access to all data. Data “related to the complaint or charge” are public, except for data on other employees, because the Chief resigned while the complaints or charges were pending, and section 13.43, subd. 2(e)(5)(v) identifies the Metro Transit Police Chief as a public official.

Signed:

Tamar Gronvall
Commissioner

January 16, 2026