Search Opinions
Browse Opinions by Date
Request an Opinion
Our Role
Help with searching
For a Topic Search use terms suggested on our Topics page. Please note that clicking the "Browse Topics" link on the Search Opinions tab will take you away from the search page to a different page, which will lose any existing search results or data that has been entered into search boxes. If you plan to search by topic, we recommend selecting your topic first, and complete any additional fields in the search form after that.
For a simple search, type a few words or a phrase in the Full Text search box, then hit Enter or click the Search button. Your search query can be a single word, multiple words separated by spaces, or it can use more advanced syntax described in the FAQ below. Try to use words that are likely to be unique to the content you're looking for.
Note: For best results when searching for a particular citation, spell out the section and subdivision. For example, “13.43, subdivision 4.”
About Search Results
The advisory opinion library currently includes:
- Data practices advisory opinions issued by the Commissioner of Administration from 1993 to the present.
- Open Meeting Law advisory opinions issued by the Commissioner of Administration from 2003 to the present.
The Commissioner's authority is found in Minnesota Statutes, section 13.072. Opinions are nonbinding, but a court may give them deference in a court action. Parties to a court action that act in conformity with an advisory opinion are not liable for certain damages or attorneys fees.
A written, numbered, and published opinion issued by the attorney general shall take precedence over an advisory opinion issued by the Commissioner of Administration.
Results 1 - 10 of 162
Advisory Opinion 24-001
July 15, 2024; Minnesota Department of Human Services
This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.072 (2023). It is based on the facts and information ...
Description: A data subject asked whether the Department of Human Services complied with section 13.04, subd. 4 when it extended a deadline to respond to a challenge that data about him were accurate and complete. The Commissioner noted that section 13.04, subd. 4(c) requires a government entity to respond to a data challenge within 30 days by either correcting the disputed data or informing the data subject that it has determined the data are correct. The plain language of the subdivision does not permit an entity to extend this 30-day deadline. Therefore, the Commissioner opined that DHS did not comply with the Data Practices Act when it extended the deadline to respond to the data subject's challenge.
Category: Data subjects
Keywords: Data subjects, Challenge accuracy and completeness of data, Data subjects (13.04)
Commissioner: Tamar Gronvall
Advisory Opinion 23-004
October 3, 2023; City of Fertile
This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.072 (2022). It is based on the facts and information ...
Description: A data subject asked whether a city council violated the Open Meeting Law when it held multiple closed sessions under Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.05 subd. 2(b), to discuss allegations against an individual subject to its authority. The data subject also asked whether a city responded appropriately to a request for data made under Minnesota Statutes, section 13.04. The Commissioner opined that the Council did not comply with the Open Meeting Law when it held closed meetings under section 13D.05 subd. 2(b), as it had previously determined that discipline may be warranted and discussed matters outside the scope of closure permitted by the section. Additionally, the Commissioner concluded that the City did not respond appropriately to a request from the data subject because it did not provide access to the data within ten business days, as required by section 13.04.
Category: Open Meeting Law, Closed meetings, Requests for data, Data subjects
Keywords: Open Meeting Law, Closed meetings, Requests for data, Data subjects, Timeliness of response to data subject - immediately or ten business days, Recording meetings
Commissioner: Stacie Christensen Temporary
Advisory Opinion 23-001
June 14, 2023; Western Prairie Human Services
This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.072 (2022). It is based on the facts and information ...
Description: A data subject asked whether a joint powers entity responded appropriately to a data subject request when it did not provide responsive data within 10 business days. The Commissioner opined that the entity did not respond appropriately. She encouraged government entities to discuss the requirements of section 13.04 with contractors and IT personnel to ensure data subject requests are responded to within the required timeframe.
Category: Data subjects, Response to data requests
Keywords: Data subjects, Response to data requests, Access by data subject or parent, Response to data request, Data subjects (13.04)
Commissioner: Stacie Christensen Temporary
Advisory Opinion 22-001
January 4, 2022; SouthWest Transit
This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.072 (2021). It is based on the facts and information ...
Description: A member of the public asked whether a joint powers entity responded appropriately to a request for a copy of its data access policies as well as to a request for data about himself made pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.04. The Commissioner determined that the entity did not respond properly to the request for a copy of its policies because the entity had not yet adopted the required access policies at the time of the request. Additionally, the Commissioner noted that the entity contacting the requester during the afternoon of the day the 10-day deadline expired to offer an opportunity to inspect data did not reasonably meet the requirements of section 13.04, subdivision 3. As a result, the Commissioner opined that the entity did not respond appropriately to the data request made by a data subject. Finally, the Commissioner provided guidance on government entities’ responsibilities related to large data requests and internal procedures that consider respectful workplace policies.
Category: Policies and Procedures, Data subjects, Response to data requests
Keywords: Policies and Procedures, Data subjects, Response to data requests, Data subject access, Data access policy
Commissioner: Alice Roberts-Davis
Advisory Opinion 19-010
June 18, 2019; Minnesota Department of Health
This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.072 (2018). It is based on the facts and information ...
Description: In Advisory Opinion 19-010, a member of the public asked whether a state agency had violated the Data Practices Act because it had not provided her with access to the data he requested (public personnel data on two employees) until eight months after she asked for the data. In previous advisory opinions, the Commissioner has stated that a prompt, reasonable response is relative to the volume of data requested. Here, she opined that given the facts of this specific data request, including the type and amount of data requested, the agency’s response was not timely.
Category: Requests for data, Response to data requests
Keywords: Requests for data, Response to data requests, Untimely, generally, Multiple data subjects, Timeliness of response to public - prompt, reasonable time (13.03, subd. 2), (1205.0300), Responsible authority duties, Responsible authority (RA), Responsible authority, Response to data request, Requestor responsibility, Request for data, Inappropriate response, generally, Government data, Department of Health data, Data request vs. question/inquiry, Data request policy, Request for data
Commissioner: Alice Roberts-Davis
Advisory Opinion 19-004
March 28, 2019; ISD 283, St. Louis Park Schools
This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.072 (2018). It is based on the facts and information ...
Description: A school district asked whether it should provide access to a video of two students engaged in an altercation to one of the parents of one of the students. The Commissioner stated that where possible, schools must segregate the requesting parent’s student’s data from any other students’ data. However, relying on federal guidance, the Commissioner concluded, if segregating the data is not possible, then the school should provide the requesting parent with access to the unredacted video.
Category: Educational data
Keywords: Educational data, Videotapes, Data subject access, Educational data, Educational data disclosure, Education data, Access by data subject or parent, Multiple data subjects
Commissioner: Alice Roberts-Davis
Advisory Opinion 18-010
July 30, 2018; ISD 709, Duluth Public Schools
This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.072 (2017). It is based on the facts and information ...
Description: A data requester asked whether a school district had responded appropriately to several data requests he made, including one for data about himself. The Commissioner opined that the district did not respond appropriately to the requests for public data in these specific circumstances when it did not communicate with the requester in nearly five months, despite the fact that the district knew that some data the requester sought no longer existed. The Commissioner further opined that the district did not respond appropriately to the requester’s request for data about himself because it did not provide him with any data within ten business days, as required by Minn. Stat § 13.04.
Category: Response to data requests, Requests for data
Keywords: Response to data requests, Requests for data, Timeliness of response to data subject - immediately or ten business days, Timeliness of response to public - prompt, reasonable time (13.03, subd. 2), (1205.0300), Timely response required, access immediately or within ten business days, Timely, generally
Commissioner: Matthew Massman
Advisory Opinion 18-005
May 21, 2018; Carver County
This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.072 (2017). It is based on the facts and information ...
Description: A data subject asked if a county responded appropriately to a data request when it failed to comply within ten business days. The Commissioner concluded that Minn. Stat. § 13.04, subdivision 3, is clear: entities must comply with data subject requests within ten business days. The request resulted in almost 3,000 emails and, as of the date of the opinion, the County had failed to provide any emails to the data subject. The Commissioner acknowledged the challenge in producing all of the data within the strict time limit, but also noted that the statute does not allow for additional time in mitigating circumstances.
Category: Data subjects, Response to data requests, Requests for data
Keywords: Data subjects, Response to data requests, Requests for data, Access by data subject or parent, Timeliness of response to data subject - immediately or ten business days, Response to data request, Data subjects (13.04), Data subject rights of access procedures (13.05, subd. 8)/(13.025, subd. 3), Data subject access
Commissioner: Matthew Massman
Advisory Opinion 17-010
December 7, 2017; ISD 564, Thief River Falls
This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.072 (2017). It is based on the facts and information ...
Description: A school district asked whether it had to provide a copy of an audio-recorded interview with a student to the student’s parent when the recording included educational data on multiple students. The Commissioner opined that the District should make every effort to redact the audiotape so that private educational data of other students is protected. However, if the District was unable to redact the tape, the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) required the District to inform the parent of the specific information about the parent’s student.
Category: Educational data, Multiple data subjects
Keywords: Educational data, Multiple data subjects, Education data, Educational data disclosure, Educational data, included (See also: Educational data - Personnel data), Redaction (See also: Multiple data subjects; Separation of data), Multiple data subjects
Commissioner: Matthew Massman
Advisory Opinion 14-006
June 5, 2014; Independent School District 625 (St. Paul)
This is an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration issued pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.072 (2013). It is based on the facts and information ...
Description: Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did Independent School District 625, St. Paul, respond appropriately to a March 15, 2014, request for data?
Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, did Independent School District 625, St. Paul, respond appropriately to a March 25, 2014, request for data pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.04, subdivision 3?
Category: Data subjects, Personnel data, Requests for data, Response to data requests
Keywords: Data subjects, Personnel data, Requests for data, Response to data requests, Timely response required, access immediately or within ten business days, Complaint or charge, Clarification of request
Commissioner: Spencer Cronk
Refine your search
Filter By Keywords
- All Results
- Data subjects (112)
- Educational data (78)
- Personnel data (41)
- Tennessen warning (29)
- Multiple data subjects (26)
- Response to data requests (23)
- Informed consent (19)
- Redaction (14)
- Requests for data (14)
- Tennessen warning notice (13.04, subd. 2) (12)
- Data subject access to personnel data (11)
- Data subject rights of access procedures (13.05, subd. 8)/(13.025, subd. 3) (11)
- Legislative authority and intent (11)
- Challenge accuracy and completeness of data (10)
- Education data (10)
- Limitation on collection/use of data (13.05, subd. 4) (10)
- Redaction (See also: Multiple data subjects; Separation of data) (10)
- Tennessen warning and federal Privacy Act notices required (9)
- Copy costs (8)
- Employment setting (7)
- Law enforcement data (7)
- Entity responsibility (6)
- Limit on frequency of access to data (6)
- Access by data subject or parent (5)
- Complete and current 13.05 (5)
- Data incidental to the data subject (5)
- Data subject access (5)
- Harassment data (13.43, subd. 8) (5)
- Informed of existence/classification (5)
- Security safeguards (13.05, subd. 5) (5)
- Timely response required, access immediately or within ten business days (5)
- Civil investigative data (13.39) (4)
- Complainant identity (4)
- Data access to data subject (4)
- Data necessary for administration and management of programs (13.05, subd. 3) (4)
- Limitation on collection and use of private/confidential data (13.05, subd. 4) (4)
- Necessary to administer a program authorized by law (13.05, subd. 3) (4)
- Patient records (144.335, subd. 3a / 144.293) (4)
- Policies and Procedures (4)
- Social services/welfare data (4)
- Tennessen warning notice (4)
- Civil investigative data (3)
- Commissioner of Administration (3)
- Data subjects (13.04) (3)
- Determine data subject case by case (3)
- Electronic data (3)
- Existence of data (3)
- FERPA (Federal Education Rights and Privacy Act) (3)
- Implied vs. written (3)
- Inextricably intertwined data (See also: Northwest Publications, Inc. v. City of Bloomington, 499 N.W.2d 509) (3)
- Inspection (3)
- Parental access to private data (13.02, subd. 8); (1205.0500) (3)
- Public document/annual report (13.05, subd. 1 and 1205.1200) (3)
- Purpose of notice - informed choice (3)
- Records management/retention (3)
- Responsible authority (3)
- Statutory construction (Ch. 645) (3)
- Timeliness of response to data subject - immediately or ten business days (3)
- Vocational rehabilitation data (3)
- Work assignment reasonably requires access (1205.0400, 1205.0600) (3)